bX .tibhb V.2 Summers, Thomas 0. 1812- 1882. Systematic theology 4 SYSTEMATIC TH A COMPLETE BODY OF Wesleyan Arminian Divinity CONSISTING OF Lectures on the Twenty-live Articles of Religion BY THE LATE REV. THOS. O. SUMMERS, D.D., LL.D., PKOFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN VANDLKBILT L'XIVERSITY. The Whole Arranged and Revised, With Introduction, Copious Notes, Explanatory and Supplemental, And a Theological Glossary, BY THE REV. JNO. J. TIGERT, M.A., S.T.B., PROFESSOR IX VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY. IX TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. NASHVILLE, TENN.: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. J. D. BARBEE, AGENT. 1888. Entered, according to Act of Conjrress, in the year 1888, By tiik JiooK Agents of the Methodist Episcopal Chl'kch, South, in the Ollice of the Eibi arian of Congress, at AVashington. Contents of Volume 11. BOOK VI- Anthropology : the Doctrine of Man. PART I. Of Original or Birth Sin (Art. VII.). CHAPTER I. PELAGIANISM, AUGUSTINIANISM, ARMINIANISM. I. Rise and Development of Pelagianism. o PAOB § 1. Errors Attributed to Pelagius 19 §2. Pelagianism before Pelagius 21 §3. More Orthodox Patristic Views 23 ^ 4. Infant Baptism 24 II. Rise and Development of Augustinianism. ? 1. The Doctrine of Auoustin 25 ^2. The Doctrine among the Scholastics 2(5 g 3. The Council of Trent 27 The Lutheran View 27 § 5. John Calvin 28 §6. Keaction from Calvinism 31 III. Via Media of Arminianism. § 1. Statement of the Arminian View 31 " § 2. Points of Difference 33 §3. Methodism Kejects the Semi-pelagianism of Limborch 34 - § 4. Methodist Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction for Original Sin 35 CHAPTER II. THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE: DEFENSE AND PROOF. § 1. The Phrase "Original Sin" Explained and Defended 45 § 2. Imputation Mediate, Not Immediate 4Q y ? 3. Negative and Positive Definition of Original Sin 46 ^ I 4. Original Righteousness 47 §5. The Image of God 49 (3) 4 Contents. PAGE ^ 6. The Nature of Virtue and Sin 53 ^7. No Semi-pelagianism in the Article 54 § 8. Proofs of the Doctrine from Personal Experience 55 § 9. Proofs from Observation 56 § 10. Scriptural Proofs 08 §11. Conclusion 59 PART II. Of Free-will (Art. VIII.). CHAPTER I. FREE-WILL AND INABILITY. § 1. Pelagianism, Semi-pelagianism, and Their Modifications 62 ^ 2. "New Divinity" in New England: Parable of the Great Sup- per 63 ^3. What is Meant by Free-will? 64 §4- Inability of Man 68 CHAPTER II. PREVENTING AND CO-OPERATING GRACE. § 1. Grace Defined 70 g 2. "Free Grace:" In All and For All 72 ^ 3. Regeneration Defined 73 ^4. Preventing Grace.,.: 77 ^ 5. Co-operating Grace 77 6. Synergism 81 CHAPTER III. SCRIPTURE PROOFS OF THE DOCTRINE. g 1. Preliminary 84 §2. Moses and the Prophets 84 ? 3. John vi. 44-46, and Parallel Passages 85 H New Testament Examples 87 g 5. Synergism Taught in the Scriptures 89 PART III. Of the Justification of Man (Art. IX.). CHAPTER I. ERRORS CONCERNINGTHIS DOCTRINE STATED AND REFUTED. 'i 1. Lutheran Views of the Doctrine 93 g 2. Patristic Statements...* 95 §3. Baptismal Jtstification 97 Contents. 5 PAGB § 4. Views of the Schoolmen 9S I 5. The Council of Trent 99 ^ 6. Bellarmin's Development of the Tridentine Theory 101 g 7. Merit Excluded 101 ^8. Justifying Faith., 102 ^ 9. Reconciliation of James with Paul 102 1 10. Mr. Wesley and the Conference of 1770 104 The Conference of 1771 106 1 12. Universality 107 1 13. Terminism 108 § 14. Apostates Answerable for All Their Sins 109 ^15. Conclusion Ill CHAPTER II. CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL CHARACTER OF THIS DOC- TRINE. g 1. Priestly Pardons 112 ^ 2. The Creed and the Lord's Prayer 116 ^3. Pardon by Prerogative Considered 117 I 4. The Calvinistic and Arminian Ordo Sah tis 118 ^5. Dr. Cocker's Erroneous View of Justification 120 §6. John Goodwin on Justification 122 I 7. John Calvin on Justification 123 ^ 8. John Wesley on Justification 125 §9. Objections Answered 126 §10. Conclusion 127 PART IV. Of Good Works (Art. X.). CHAPTER I. THE WORKS DESIGNATED GOOD. ^ 1. Good Works before Justification 129 §2. Mr. Wesley on Good Works in General 129 § 3. Such Good Works Not Splendid Sins 131 §4. Bishop Browne on the Thirteenth English .Article 131 §5. Definition of Good Works 131 I 6. Scriptural Examples Considered 132 CHAPTER II RELATION OF GOOD WORKS TO SIN AND DIVINE JUDGMENT. § 1. Good Works Cannot Put Away Sin J 33 I 2. Good Works Cannot Endure the Divine Scrutiny 134 6 Contents. CHAPTER III. POSITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD WORKS. I. Good Works Acceptable to God. PAGB ^ 1. Good Works Divinkly Prescribed 137 ^ 2. Good Works PerforxMed by Divine Grace 138 'i 3. Good Works Redound to the Divine Glory 139 II. Good Works the Fruit of Faith. ^1. Contrast of Living and Dead Faith 141 ? 2. Our Lord's Test 142 ^3. Dr. Pope on "Living Faith" 143 PART V. Of Works of Supererogation (Art. XI.Y CHAPTER I. THE ROMAN DOCTRINE STATED. ^L Supererogation Defined 145 §2. A Prote-stant Article 145 I 3. iSouRCEs OF the Error 146 I 4. Romish Doctrine of Satisfaction 147 ^5. Evangelical Counsels 147 ^6. Jeremy Taylor on Luke xvii. 10 148 ^ 7. Exposition of Luke xvii. 10 149 ^ 8. The Two Great Commandments 150 ^ 9. No Distinction of Internal and External 150 Works of Supererogation Impossible 151 CHAPTER II. ALLEGED SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES CONSIDERED. O- The Rich Ruler and Voluntary Poverty 152 ^2. Christian Communism lo3 ^ 3. Celibacy 154 ^ 4. Paul and Ministerial Compensation 155 5. Degrebs in Excellency 15G ^6. Mcehler's Doctrine Reviewed .. 157 PART VI. Of Sin After Justification (Art. XII.). CHAPTER I. MR. WESLEY'S CHANGES EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED. § 1. The Sub.stitution of " Ju.stification " for "Bapti.sm." 161 g 2. The Romish Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin.s... 161 % Contents. 7 Page ^ 3. The Sin Agai^jst the Holy Ghost 102 CHAPTER II. NOVATIANISM. l\. Historical 1G5 ^2. Critical Examination of Heb. vi. 4-6 105 §3. Critical Examination of Heb. x. 26-31 lOS §4. The Ante-Nicene Church 109 §5. Testimony of Scripture 170 g 6. Ancient and Modern Tendencies toward Xovatianism 171 CHAPTER III. THE DOGMA OF INAM ISSIBLE GRACE REFUTED. ? 1. Historical 173 12. The Thesis to be Defended 177 §3. Amissibility Set Forth in Scripture Didactically 177 § 4. Amtssibility Implied in Positive Divine Injunctions 179 lb. Amissibility Implied in Exhortations to Perseverance 183 ^6. Amissibility Implied in Expostulations Concerning Apostasy. 186 §7. Amissibility Implied in Warnings Against Apostasy 189 I 8. Amissibility Implied in Rewards Promised to Perseverance . 191 ^9. Amissibility Implied in Prayers for Perseverance 193 § 10. Amissibility Demonstrated by Scriptural Examples of Apos- tasy 194 III. Amissibility Inculcated in Parables of our Lord 197 §12. Amissibility Shown by Weakness of Contrary Arguments.. . 199 §13. Flavel's Four Grounds Considered 208 § 14. The Full Assurance of Hope 209 §15. Short and Easy Settlement of the Controversy 210 BOOK VIL Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church, its Sacraments and Ministry. PART I. Of the Church (Art. XIII.). CHAPTER I. THE CHURCH: ITS SCRIPTURAL IDEA. ? 1. The Distinction of Visible and Invisible 215 ? 2. Membership in the Visible and Invisible Churches 215 §3. Salvation AVithout the Pale of the Church 216 §4. Signification of the Term Ciiuecii in the Scriptures 217 8 Contents, ^5. New Testament Uses Discriminated 2i'J g 6. The Term in the Article, Catechism, and Apostles' Creed... 220 CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH AS CATHOLIC AND VISIBLE. 1 1. Confusion of the Protestant Confessions 221 I 2. Greek, Roman, and High-church Errors 22,'J § 3. The True View of the Church, Visible and Catholic 223 CHAPTER ill. THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH. ^ 1. Notes Enumerated by the Reformers 225 'i 2. Cardinal Bellarmin's Notes 227 'i 3. Catholicity 227 H- Antiquity 220 g 5. Duration 231 ?G. Amplitude , 232 ? 7. Episcopal Succession 233 I 8. Apostolical Agreement 233 ?9. Unity....: 234 §10. Sanctity of Doctrine 237 Efficacy of Doctrine 238 ?12. Holiness of Life 238 * §13. Miracles 240 §14. Prophecy 241 §15. Admission of Adversaries 241 § IG. Unhappy End of Adversaries 242 §17. Temporal Felicity 242 § 18. Conclusion 242 PART II. Of Purgatory, Pardons, I mage- worship etc. (Art. XIV.). CHAPTER I. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. §1. The Doctrine as Defined by Councils and Theologians 24G § 2. Alleged Scriptural Proofs 247 § 3. Patristic Proofs 250 §4. The Action of Councils 251 §5. Miraculous Proofs 251 § 6. Rational Proofs 252 §7. Conclusion 253 Contents. 9 CHAPTER II THE DOCTRINE OF PARDONS OR INDULGENCES. Page § 1. Definition and History 254 I 2. EoMiSH Proofs Considered 258 CHAPTER III. IMAGE AND RELIC WORSHIP. ^ 1. Introductory 260 I 2. Romish Statements 260 §3. Universality of the Practice 261 I 4. Origin and Development of This Practice 263 ^ 5. Arguments for the Practice PcEfuted 264 CHAPTER IV. THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. § 1. Introductory 272 §2. The Roman Position 272 ^3. The Romish Distinction of Degrees or Kinds of Worship 274 ^4. Mediation of Redemption and of Intercession 275 ^5. The Saints ^Iore Compassionate Than Christ 275 ? 6. Prayers of Earthly and of Heavenly Saints 2<() I 7. Saint? and Angels in the Presence of God 277 §8. Romish Proofs from Scripture Considered... 277 §9. Patristic Authorities 282 ?i 10. The Action of Councils 284 PART III. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People Understand (Art. XV.). CHAPTER I. THE PRACTICE AND ITS APOLOGY. §1. The Religionists Guilty of This Practice 286 ^2. The Apology Offered 287 CHAPTER 11. THE PRACTICE CONDEMNED BY SCRIPTURE AND THE PRIMI- TIVE CHURCH. By Scripture 289 §5. By the Primitive Church 290 I 3. Conclusion 291 10 Contents. PART IV. Of the Sacraments (Art. XVI.). CHAPTER I. THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. ^^^^ n. ^Ir. Wesley'.s Changes 294 I 2. The Definition of a Sacrament 294 ?3. The Word "Sacrament" ' .. 296 H- Historical 297 'i 5 The First Paragraph Directed Against the Zuinglian View. 298 CHAPTER II. THE FIVE PSEUDO-SACRAMENTS. ? \. The Two Sacraments Ordained of Christ 299 'i 2. The Five Spurious Sacraments Repudiated 299 I 3. Historical 300 'i 4. Romish Arguments for the Number Seven 301 ^5. Confirmation 303 I 6. Penance „ 311 ^7. Orders 323 ? 8. Matrimony 330 §9. Extreme Unction 340 CHAPTER III. THE USE AND ABUSE OF SACRAMENTS. ? 1. The Abuse 346 ^ 2. The Rightful Use and Effect 347 PART V. Of Baptism (Art. XVII.). CHAPTER I. DEFINITION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM. H. Definition 352 12. Judaic, Johannine, and Christian Baptism 352 1 3. The Apostolic Practice 353 ?4. Baptism a Sign of Christian Profession 354 ^5. Objections to This Tp:acking Considered 359 ? 6. Baptism a Sign of Regeneration 368 2 7. Baptismal Regeneration Disproved and Repudiated 370 I 8. The .AFode of Baptism 377 Contents. 11 CHAPTER II. INFANT BAPTISM. f^gs ^ 1. Introductory 384 I 2. Scriptural Proofs of Infant Baptism 384 I 3v Testimony of Antiquity 386 ^ 4. Proof Afforded by the Pelagian Controversy 390 Ih. Protestant Use of Patristic Testimony 391 ^6. Infants Subjects of Redeeming Grace, Hence of Baptism 392 I 7. Infants Embraced in the Gospel Covenant 392 I 8. Unity of the Church Under all Dispensations 39.{ § 9. Baptism Substituted for Circumcision 395 1 10. Infant Church-membership Recognized in the New Testa- ment „ 396 1 11. Errors to be Avoided 400 1 12. Bishop Marvin on Infant Baptism and Parental Responsi- bility 402 PART VI. Of the Lord's-supper (Art. XVIII.). CHAPTER I. THE LORD'S-SUPPER: DESIGN, SUBJECTS, MATTER, FORM, EFFICACY. ? 1. A Sign of Christian Love 406 ^ 2. A Sacrament of Our Redemption \ 407 g 3. The Subjects of This Ordinance 409 g 4. The Matter of This Sacrament 411 §5. The Form of This Sacrament 415 I 6. The Efficacy of This Sacrament 420 CHAPTER II. TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1 1. Addition in King Edavard's Article 426 § 2. The Tridentine Doctrine ... 427 ^ 3. Romish Proofs from Scripture Considered 428 I 4. Patristic Proofs 431 '1 5. Further Roman Proofs 439 I 6. History of the Dogma 441 I 7. The Superstitions Engendered 443 ? 8. Lutheran Consubstantiation 444 ^9. Calvin's Theory of the Spiritual Presence . 446 ? 10. Elevation and Worship of the Elements 448 12 Contents. PART VII. Of Both Kinds (Art. XIX.). CHAPTER I. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE AS DEFINED BY THE COUNCILS. PAGB 1 1. Introductory 452 § 2. The Council of Constance 452 ^3. The Council of Trent 452 CHAPTER II. THE ROMISH ARGUMENTS STATED AND REFUTED. § 1. KoMisH Claim Concerning Christ's Institution 454 I 2. Romish Claim of Christ's Administration at Emmaus 454 3. Romish Claim Based on Passages in the Acts 454 § 4. Romish Use of 1 Cor. xi. 27 and John vi. 51 455 5. Thomas Aquinas's Doctrine of " Concomitance." , 455^ ^ 6. Puerile Objections to the Use of Wine 457 §7. Romish Attempts to Prove Apostolic Half-communion 457 §8. The Hussite Wars 458 §9. Is the Romish Sect a Church? 458 PART VIII. Of the One Oblation of Christ, Finished Upon the Cross (Art. XX.). CHAPTER I. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF THE MASS. §]. Canons of the Council of Trent 461 ^2. The Roman Catechism 461 ? 3. Romish Proof from 1 Cor. x. 21 Considered 462 ^i. Alleged Old Testament Proofs 463 ? 5. The Sacrifice of Melchizedek 464 §6. Proofs from Tradition 466 CHAPTER II. THE PROTESTANT POSITION. § 1. TiTF. Doc^trine as Argued in the Epistle to the Hebrews 467 ?2. The Lord's-supper Benefits Only Those Present 468 ? 3. Conclusion , 468 Contents. 13 PART IX. Of the Marriage of Ministers (Art. XXI.). CHAPTER I. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE STATED AND REFUTED. 1 1. The Tridentine Statement 473 §2. Inconsistency of the Chukch of Home 474 §3. Marriage of Apostles and Evangelists 474 I 4. Paul's Doctrine 475 I 5. Monuments in the Catacombs 478 I 6. Historical 478 CHAPTER II. THE VOW OF CELIBACY. 1 1. Such Vows Find No Support in Scripture 480 I 2. Grounds of the Romish Policy 482 § 3. Jeremy Taylor on Clerical Marriage 482 PART X. Of the Rites and Cerennonies of Churches (Art. XXII.). CHAPTER I. RITES AND CEREMONIES DEFINED AND CLASSIFIED. Rites and Ceremonies Defined 486 12. Two Kinds of Ceremonif^ 488 CHAPTER II. THE TWO CLASSES OF CEREMONIES. § 1. Ceremonies: Required and Expedient 489 I 2. Ceremonies Laavful 489 §3. By What Authority Shall Ceremonies Be Prescribed? 490 I 4. Conclusion 492 BOOK VIII. Christian Ethics; or Moral Theology. PART I. Of the Rulers of the United States of America (Art XXIII.). CHAPTER I. THE CHRISTIAN AND THE STATE. § 1. The Article Devoid of Party Significance 499 1 2. Doctrine of the Scriptures 499 14 Contend* CHAPTER II. POLITICAL ETHICS. 'i 1. Dr. Pope ox Political Ethics 502 §4. Dr. IIodge ox Obediencb: to CiviL Magistrates 503 PART 11. Of Christian Men's Goods (Art. XXIV.). CHAPTER !. COMMUNISM. 1 1. Historical 507 {. 2. The Scriptural Doctrine 608 CHAPTER II. CHRISTIAN ALMSGIVING. 1. ScRiPTURiJ Teachings 511 § 2. General Principles of Christian Condi-ct 512 §3. No Christian Tithe Law 513 PART III. Of a Christian Man's Oath (Art. XXV.). CHAPTER I. DEFINITION AND HISTORY. ^ 1. Definition 515 ^ 2. Historical 515 ' CHAPTER II. THE LAWFULNESS OF OATHS. 1 1. Scripture Teachings 517 ^2. Our Saviour's Command , 518 BOOK VI. ANTpOPOLOGY; THE DOCTRINE OF IVIAN; IN HIS TWO STATES OF NATURE j^ND OF GRACE. I. Of Original or Birth Sin. (Article VII.) II. Of Free Will. (Article YIII.) III. Of the Justification of Man. (Article IX.) IV. Of Good Works. (Article X.) V. Of Works of Supererogation. ( Article XI.) VI. Of Sin After Justification. (Article XII.) PART I. ARTICLE VII. Of Original or Birth Sin. Origixal Sin standeth not in the following of Adam {as the Pela- gians do vainly talk), hut it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nat- ure inclined to evil, ^md that continually. Introduction. The sound judgment of Jolin Wesley was strikingly displayed in thus abridging the Ninth Article of the Anglican Confession, which reads as follows: Original sin standeth not in the following o{ Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offsfpringof Adam ; whereby man is very far gone from origi- nal righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lust- eth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into the world, it deservetli God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek (ppovrjfxa capKoq (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh,) is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.f * A few i-emarks conceniing the general scope of this Book are here in place. Some theologians, as Dr. Knapp, giving the Doctrine concerning Man its largest place in tlie theological system, treat (1) of the state into Avhich man is brought by the Fall, and (2) of the state into which man is brought by the Reflemption. These in broad terms ai-e the two great doctrines of Sin and Salvation (Hamai-tiology and Soteriology). The fii-st is here represented by Articles VII. and VIII., Of Original or Birth Sin," and Of Free Will." and the second by the remaining Articles of this Book. The docti-ines of Soteriology have already been in part anticipated in Book II., which treats of Christ and his Salvation (So- teriology objective), and in Book IV., which treats of the Holy Spii'it and his Administra- tion of Redemption (Soteriology subjective). Bnt there is here only an apparent sacrifice of system, in Books II. and IV. the doctrine of salvation gathers alx)ut Christ and the Spirit, as the gi'eat Agents in its accomplishment: in Book VI. the same docti-ine finds its center in man as the beneficiary and subject of the works of Christ and the Spirit.— T. iThis text of the Article, which Dr. Summers did not transcribe, has been inserted fi-om the ''Book of Common Praver" of the Protestant Episcopal Church published bv T. 2 ' (17) 18 Orifjinal or Birth Sin. As a minister of a National Church whose confession was got- ten up on the principle of compromise and comi^rehension, AVes- ley, like other Arminians of the English Church, put his own construction upon this article, so as to make it quadrate with Arminian orthodoxy. AVe are very thankful that we are not called upon to do the like. AVhen he abridged the Thirty-nine Articles for the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, he omitted al- together the ambiguous portion of this article. Like the Seven- teenth, the Ninth Article has, to say the least, a Calvinistic tinge. Our Seventh Article is purely Arminian and Scriptural. The Anglican Article was evidently derived from the Second Article of the Augsburg Confession, which was drawn up before the Calvinistic controversy began, and had in view the Pela- gianism of the Council of Trent, which it opposes. The Augs- burg Article bears this title, "De Peccato Originis," which is nearly the same as the Latin title of the Anglican Article, "De Originali Peccato." It reads thus: Our Clinrclies likewise teach tliat, since the fall of Adam, all men who are nat- urally engendered are horn with a depraved nature [cum peccatol, that is, without the fear of God or confidence toward him; but with sinful i)roi3ensities, and tliat this disease, or natural depravity, is sin, and still condemns and causes eternal death to those who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original corruption Ivitium orif)- inW] is sin, and who, that they may diminish the glory of the merits and benefits of Christ, allege that man may, by the proper operation of reason, bejustified be- fore God.* Kelson & Sons, New York, 1871, and certified by Bishop Horatio Potter, under date of April 3, 1850.— T. * The full text of the Aiigslnirg Confession, in both Latin and English, may be found in Ai)pendix I. of Bishop Burnett's "Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles," from which eource the above text is extracted.— T. CHAPTER I. PELACIANISM, AUGUSTINIANISM, ARMiNIANISM. I. Rise and Development of Pelagianism. g 1. Errors Attributed to Pelagius. The "others" alluded to [in the Augsburg Article] are the pa- pists, who sanctioned some of the errors attributed to Pelagius. We say attributed, for it is somewhat difficult to ascertain his real sentinents. Hook, in his " Church Dictionary," gives the follow- ing account of Pelagius and his opinions: Pelagius, being charged with lieresy, left Home, and "went into Africa, Avhere he was present at the famous conference held at Cartilage, between the Catholics and Donatists. From Carthage he traveled into Egypt, and at last went to Jeru- salem, where he settled. lie died somewhere in the East, but where is uncertain. His principal tenets, as we find them charged upon his disciple Cadestius by the church of Carthage, were these: I. That Adam was by nature mortal, and, whether he had sinned or not, would have died, II. That the consequences of Adam's sin were confined to his person, and the rest of mankind received no disadvantage thereby. III. That the law qualified men for the kingdom of heaven, and was founded upon equal promises witii the gospel. IV. That, before the coming of our Saviour, soiiae men lived without sin. Y. Tiiat newborn infants arc in the same condition witli Adam before his fall. yi. That the general resurrection of the dead does not follow in virtue of our Saviour's resurrection. YII. That a man may keep the commands of God without difficulty, and pre- serve himself in a perfect state of innocence. VIII. That rich men cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven unless they part with all their estate. IX. That the grace of God is not granted for the performance of every moral act; the liberty of the will, and information in points of duty, being suflicient for this purpose. X. That the grace of God is given in proportion to our merits. XI. That none can be called the sons of God, but 'those who are perfectly free from sin. XII. That our victory over temptation is not gained by God's assistance, but by the liberty of the Avill. The great antagonist of Pelagius was Augustin, whose errors (19) 20 Original or Birth Sin. on the one side were as great as those of Pelagius on the other; yet the one is canonized as a saint, and the other cursed as a heretic. The predestinariau scheme of Augustin is more derog- atory to the divine glory and more shocking to our reason and sensibilities than that of Pelagius. But it does not follow from this that the errors attributed to the latter are not great, and that it does not behoove us to expose and denounce them. There is no necessity of embracing Augustianism in order to avoid Pelagianism. Arminianism steers clear of the Scylla of the one, and the Charybdis of the other. " That Adam was by nature mortal, and, whether he had sinned or not, would certainly have died," is plainly opposed to the Scriptures. Watson says pithily ("Institutes" ii. 18, p. 386): The Pelagian and Socinian notion, that Adam would have died had he not sinned, requires no other refutation than the words of the Apostle Paul, who de- clares expressly that death entered the world "by sin;" and so it inevitably fol- lows, that, as to man, at least, but for sin there would have been no death. . . . The opinion of those divines who include in the penalty attached to the first offense the very " fullness of death," as it has been justly termed, death, bodily, spiritual, and eternal, is not to be puffed away by sarcasm, but stands firm on in- spired testimony. Indeed it does. God threatened Adam and Eve with death, in case of disobedience, and that that death included the separation of the soul from the body, commonly called temporal death, is clear from Gen. iii. — " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Hence they were driven out of Paradise, where alone grew the tree of life, which Avas the guarantee of their immortal- ity. "In Adam all die," says the apostle. The Jews always so understood it. Thus we read in Wisdom ii. 23, 24: "For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the v/orld; and they that do hold of his side do find it." Of course the kindred dogma attributed to Pelagius, "That the general resurrection of the dead does not follow in virtue of our Saviour's resurrection," is equally unscriptural, as the apostle says plainly, " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22.) The second and fifth propositions attributed to Pelagius are spe- cially opposed in this article. Pelagia n ism , A ugustin ian ism, A rmin lanism. 21 § 2. Pelagianism before Pelagius. It lias been affirmed that these propositions were held by the Fathers generally before Pelagius, while others deny this Sitate- ment. The truth is that the primitive Fathers were not very pre- cise or consistent in their dogmatic statements; hence they some- times used language which sounds very much like Pelagianism, while they also use language such as we would use in regard to • the consequences of Adam's sin. Hagenbach, speaking of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, says: Both death and physical evils were considered as the effects of Adam's sin; thus, e. g., by Irenseus and others. But opinions were not as yet fully developed concerning the moral depravity of each individual, and the sin of the race in gen- eral, considered as the effect of the first sin. They were so much disposed to look upon sin as the free act of man's will, that they could hardly conceive of it as simply an hereditary tendency, transmitted from one to another. The sin of every individual, as found in experience, had its type in the sin of Adam, and consequently appeared to be a repetition of the first sin rather than its necessary consequence. In order to explain the mysterious power which drives man to evil, they had recourse to the influence of the demons, strong, but not absolutely com- pulsory, rather than to a total bondage of the will as the result of original sin. Nevertheless, we meet in the writings of Irenajus with intimations of more pro- found views about the effects of the fall. Tertullian and Origen aided more defi- nitely the theory of original sin, though on different grounds. Origen thought that souls were stained with sin in a former state, and thus enter into the world in a sinful conditinn. To this idea he added nnother, allied to the notions of Gnos- tics and Manichees— viz., that there is a stain in physical generation itself. Ac- cording to Tertullian, the soul itself is propagated with all its defects, as matter is propagated. The phrase vitium originis, first used by him, is in perfect accord- ance with this view. But both were far from considering inherent depravity as constituting accountability, and still farther from believing in the entire absence of human liberty.* How nearly J ustin Martyr approached Pelagius may be seen in the following: Though Justin Martyr uses strong expressions in lamenting the universal cor- ruption of mankind, yet original sin, and the imputation of Adam's gnilf, are con- ceptions foreign to him. At least man has still such right moral feelings that he judges and blames the sin of others as his. (Dial c. Try ph. c. 93, 95.) Compare what follows, according to which only those filled with the evil spirit, or whollv corrupted by bad education (and hence not the posterity of Adam as such) have lost this feeling. Accordingly every man deserves death, because in his disobedi- ence he is like the first man.* Clement of Alexandria thinks man stands in the same relation to the tempter in whicn Adam stood before the fall. He rejects * " History of Doctrines," VoT. I., pp. 164-166.— T. 22 Ori(jinal or Birth Sin. the opinion that original sin is imputed to children, and does not consider Psahn li. 5 as proof of tliis doctrine. Origen is called the precursor of Pelagius. He thinks that the death which came by sin (Piom. v.) is the separation of the soul from God; that the will is free; that concupiscence is not reckoned as sin, so long as it has not ripened into a purpose, guilt arising only when we yield to it; but that the human soul does not come into the world in a state of innocence, because it sinned in a former state ; yet that man can be without sin, which Jerome calls Orifjmis ra- muscidus: the little branch of Origen, which developed into the tree of Pelagianism. Tertullian [as we have seen] speaks of vitiiim originis, and says that evil has become man's second nature; though he does not seem to impute original sin to children as real sin, because he speaks of infants as innocent, when he pleads for the delay of their baptism; yet he would have them baptized to cleanse away original sin, if there was danger of their death! His disciple, Cyprian, defends the baptism of infants on the ground of their inherent depravity, but it was to cleanse them from a foreign guilt imputed to them, not from any guilt which is properly their own; he speaks of original sin as cxmtagio mortis antiqua:, in Ep. 59; but says that it does not annul freedom. Speaking of the Greek Fathers of the succeeding period, Hagenbach says: Even those theologians who kept themselves free from the influence of the Angns- tinian system, held that the sin of Adam was followed by disastrous efiects upon the human race, but restricted these evils (as the Fathers of the preceding period had done) to the mortality of the body, the hardships and miseries of life, also admit- ting that the moral powers of man had been enfeebled by the fall. Tluis (Gregory of Nazianzum in particular (to whom Augustin appealed in preference to all others) maintained that both the vovr and the -in^X^i have been considerably impaired by sin and regarded the perversion of the religious consciousness seen in idolatry, which previous teachers had ascribed to the influence of demons, as an inevitable effect of the first sin. But he was far from asserting the total depravity of man- kind, and the entire loss of free will. On the contrary, the doctrine of the freedom of the will continued to be distinctly maintained by the Greek Church. A ha- nasius himself, the father of orthodoxy, maintained in the strongest terms that man has the abilitv of choosing good as well as evil, and even allowed exceptions from original sin, 'alleging that several individuals, who lived prior to he ap- pearance of Christ, were free from it. Cyril of .Jerusalem also life of man beirins in a state of innocence, and that sin enters only with the use of free will Similar views were entertained by Ephraem the Syrian, Gregory of >ys. sa Ba.il the (Ireat, and others. Chrysostom. whose whole tendency was of a prac Pelagianisuij Atujustinianismy Arminianism. . 23 tical and moral kind, insisted most of all upon the liberty of man and his moral self-determination, and passed a severe censure upon those who endeavored to ex- cuse their own defects by ascribing the origin of sin to tlie fall of Adam.-^- • Gregory of Nyssa admits that there is a marvelous bias to sin, but he finds no sin in infants. Hagenbach continues: During tiiis period, as well as the preceding, the theologians of the Western Church were more favorable than those of the Eastern to the Augustinian doc- trine. Even Arnobius speaks of a connatural infirmity, making men prone to sin. Hilary, and Ambrose of Milan, taught the defilement of sin by birth; Ambrose appealed especially to Psalm li. 5 in support of original sin, but without deter- mining to what extent every individual shares in the common guilt. Neverthe- less, neither of them excluded the liberty of man from the work of moral refor- mation. Even Augustin himself, at an earlier period of his life, defended human freedom in opposition to the Manicheans.* § 3. More Orthodox Patristic Views. We have stated that though the early Fathers, as we have seen, used language that savors of Pelagianism, or Semi-Pela- gianism, yet they also use language such as we would use in re- gard to the consequences of Adam's sin. Bishop Browne says: That tlie early Fathers of the Christian Church held the universality of hu- man corruption, there can be but little question. A history of infant baptism is also a history of the doctrine of original sin, baptism being for the remission of sin. If there were no original sin, infants could liave no need to be baptized. Hence Wall, in liis " History of Infant Baptism," has brought together, with great labor and fidelity, ])assages from the earliest writers, showing their belief in the original infection of our nature from Adam. It is not to be expected that the Fathers speak as clearly on this point before, as after the rise of Pelagianism. But a fair inspection of the passages thus cited will convince us that the doctrine was held almost as clearly as is expressed in our own article, from the very earliest times of the Church. For examples of the language of the Fathers we may take the following passages: "Besides the evil," says Tertullian, "which the soul con- tracts from the intervention of the wicked spirit, there is an antecedent, and, in a certain sense, natural evil arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we have al- ready observed, the corruption of our nature is another nature, having its proper god and father, namely, the author of that corruption." Cyprian, and the coun- cil of sixty-six bishops with him (A.D. 253), in their Epistle to Fidus, use the fol- lowing words: "If then the greatest offenders, and they that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they afterward come to believe, forgive- ness of sins, and no person is kept oflf from baptism and this grace, how much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has no sin save that, being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from this very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened; Avho comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own but others' sins that are forgiven him." * " History of Doctrines," Vol. I., pp. 293, 295.— T. 24 Original or Birth Sin. Bishop Browne, it will be seen, fully indorses the error of the Fathers in regard to the virtue of baptism. Alluding to Or- igen, he says: At times he speaks most clearly of all men being born in sin, and needing pu- rification. For example, Augustin could not speak more plainly tlian the follow- ing in his homily on Leviticus viii. 3 : Quod si placet, etc. " Hear David speaking, ' I was,' says he, 'conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth,' showing that every soul that is born in the flesh is polluted with the filth of sin and iniquity; and that, therefore, that was said which we mentioned before, that none is clear from pollution though his life be but the length of one day. Besides all this, let it be considered what is the reason that whereas the baptism of the Church is given for the forgiveness of sin, infants also are, by the usage of the Church, baptized; when if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them." It seems the question was discussed in Origen's day as in ours, for, in a homily on Luke, he says: Having occasion given in this place, I will mention a thing that causes fre- quent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or when have they sinned? or how can any reason of the law in their case hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even now — none are free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized. So in his Commentary on Eomans: For this also it was, that the Church had from the apostles a tradition (or or- der) to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit ; by reason of which the body itself is called the body of sin. § 4. Infant Baptism. It may be proper here to state that it does not follow that be- cause a man baptizes children he therefore believes that they were born in sin, or that they are cleansed from original sin in and by baptism. Pelagius himself baptized infants, and says he never heard of any, orthodox or heretic, who did not; but he says they were baptized in order to the remission of future sins; but children who die without baptism, he thought, would be saved, though they would experience a less degree of felicity than those that w^ere baptized. Augustin says, "A short time ago, when I was at Carthage, I heard the passing remark from some that infants are not baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but as an act of consecration to Christianity." He may have Pelag ia n ism, A ug u stin ianisw. Arm in ia uism. 25 alluded to the Pelagians; as lie elsewhere distinguishes them from some others who founded infant baptism upon actual sins committed by infants — which is worse than Luther's vagary that infants can believe, and may therefore be baptized. Augustin says: The Pelagians maintain that infants are so born without any shackles whatever of original sin, that there is nothing at all to be forgiven them through the sec- ond birth, but that they are baptized in order to admission into the kingdom of God, through regeneration to the filial state; and therefore they are changed from good to better, but are not by that renovation freed from any evil at all of the old imputation. For they promise them, even if unbaptized, an eternal and blessed life, though out of the kingdom of God. We must take what xlugustin says of the Pelagians cum gram. But it is clear that Pelagius bai)tized children as an act of conse- cration to Christianity, as we do, though we recognize in this sac- rament the inherent and inherited depravity of children which requires for its removal the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit symbolized in baptism, not accomplished by it, which is really what many of the Fathers may have meant by their rhe- torical, ambiguous, and unguarded language on this subject. II. Rise and Development of Augustinianism. §1. The Doctrine of Augustin. Augustin was the great antagonist of Pelagius and Pelagian- ism. Hagenbach says he was led to conjecture a mysterious connection subsisting between the transgression of Adam and the sin of all men — a connection which loses itself in the dim beginnings of nature no less than of history. Mere suppositions, however, did not satisfy his mind; but, carrying out his system in all its logical consequences, and applying a false exegesis to certain passages, he laid down the following rigid proposition as his doctrine: "As all men have sinned in Adam, they are justly subject to the condemnation of God on account of this hereditary sin and the guilt thereof." * By his remorseless logic, Augustin concluded that non-elect and unbaptized infants would be damned. His line of argument, says Hagenbach, is as follows: Every man is born in sin, and stands therefore in need of pardon. He obtains this by baptism: it cleanses children from original sin, and those who are bap tized in later years, not only from original sin, but also from their actual trans- gressions before the baptism. Since baptism is the only and necessary condition of salvation, it follows that unbaptized children are condemned (this fully accorded ♦"History of Doctrines," Vol. I., p. 209.— T. 26 Original or Birth Sin. witli his views on predestination). He Avas nevertheless disposed to look upon this con^lemnation as mitissima and iolerabilior, though he opposed the doctrine condemned by the Synod of Carthage, in Canon ii. (A. D. 419), of an intermediate state, in which unbaptized infants were said to be.* Augustin disclaimed the phrases peccatum naturae^ jwccatiim natiirale, imputed to him by the Pelagians, always using the phrase, which he seems to have been the first to use, peccatum orifjinaley whence our phrase, original sin. Augustin laid great stress upon Eom. v. 12; rendered in the Yulgate, which he used, in quo onnies ijeccaverunt, "in whom all have sinned," as in the margin of the Authorized Version, where the text is correct, " for * that all have sinned." But it must not be supposed that his ap- palling system was built up exclusively on this exegetical error. Hagenbacli traces it to other causes: 1. His own experience. 2. Perhaps some vestige? of his former Manichean notions, of which he himself might be unconscious, e. g., defilement in the act of generation: concupiscence, he says, is not attributed to the regenerate as sin, but, as far as nature is concerned, it is not /without sin; hence every one conceived and born in the way of nature is under sin until he is born again through him, quem sine isia concupiscentia virgo concepit. 3. His realistic mode of thinking, which led liim to confound the abstract with the concrete, and to consider the individual as a transient and vanishing part of the whole {massa perditionis). 4. His notions of the Church as a living organism, and of the effects of infarft baptism. 5. The opposition which he was compelled to make to Pelagianism and its possible con- sequences, threatening to destroy all deeper views of the Christian system. Thus, according to Augustin, not only was physical death a punishment inflicted upon Adam and all his posterity, but he looked upon original sin itself as being in some sense a punishment of the first transgression, though it was also a real sin (God punishes sin by sin), and can therefore be imputed to every individual. But it is on this very point, first strongly emphasized by him, viz., the imputa- tion of original sin, that his views differed from all former opinions, however strict they were. He endeavored to clear himself from the charge of Maniclie- ism (in opposition to Julian), by designating sin, not as a substance, but as a vitium, a languor; he even charged his opponents with Manicheism. So too he could very well distinguish between the sin, which is common to all men, and proper crime, from which the pious are preserved. (Sec. 111. Vol. I. 301.) The doctrine thus formulated by Augustin obtained largely in the Western Church, but not in the Eastern. The Greek Church has always been Libertarian and Synergistic, with a strong bias to Semi-Pelagianism. §2. The Doctrine among the Scholastics. The schoolmen discussed the subject of original sin in all its * " History of Doctrines," Vol. I., p. 360.— T. Pelar/ianism, Augustinianism, Arminianisni. 27 bearings. They generally, liovrever, maintained tliat man's body was infected by the fall, from the poison of the forbidden fruit, or some other cause; but the soul suffered only as deprived of that which man possessed in his primeval state, the presence of the Holy Spirit and supernatural rigliteousness, and as having the imputation of sin derived from xldam. The infection of the body is not sin, but a fuel which might be kindled into sin; the soul however contracted (juilt from imputation of Adam's guilt, not sin from the inheritance of Adam's sin. Augustin doubted whether the soul, as well as the body, is derived from the parents, and so contracts sin from them; but the schoolmen were general- ly Creationists, and so denied the derivation of sin to the soul, which is infected by union with the body. §3. The Council of Trent. The Council of Trent reverted nearly to th5 Augustinian stand-point. The Council decreed (1) that Adam by transgres- sion lost holiness and justice, incurred the wrath of God, death, thralldom to the devil, and was infected both in body and soul; (2) that Adam derived to his posterity death of body and sin of soul; (3) that sin transmitted by generation, not by imitation, can be abolished by no remedy but the death of Christ, and that his •merit is applied to children in baptism, as well as to adults; (4) that newly born children ought to be baptized, as having con- tracted sin from Adam; (5) that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is remitted, and all is removed which has the true and proper nature of sin ; and though the concupiscence remain- ing is called by the apostle sin, the Synod declared that it is not true and proper sin, but is so termed because it arises from sin and inclines to it. The Fathers of Trent have the advantage of Augustin in this, that they do not embarrass the doctrine with the predestinarian views of that Father. They admit with him that unbaptized infants are damned because of Adam's sin, but they do not allow that any who are baptized are damned, whereas Augustin held that, baptized or not baptized, non-elect infants are damned. The Ninth Anglican Article condemns their notion that concupiscence is not properly sin. § 4. The Lutheran View. The Lutherans hold that concupiscence has the nature of sin, and that the infection, though not the imputation of sin, remains 28 Original or Birth Sin. in the baptized and regenerate. The Augsburg Confession says it is truly sin and deserving of damnation unless we are bom again by baptism and the Holy Spirit. § 5. John Calvin. Calvin differs very little from Augustin, who was his great model. He describes this subject at great length in his "Insti- tutes," Book II., Chap, i., 5-11. He says: As the spiritual life of Adam consisted in a union to his Maker, so an aliena- tion from him was the deatli of his soul. When the divine image in him was ob- literated, and he was punished with the loss of wisdom, strength, sanctity, truth, and righteousness, with which he had been adorned, but which was succeeded by the dreadful pests of ignorance, impotence, impurity, vanity, and iniquity, he suf- fered not alone, but involved all his posterity with him, and plunged them into the same miseries. This is that hereditary corruption whicli the Fathers called orirjinal sin — meaning by sin, the depravation of a nature previously good and pure; on which subject they had much contention, nothing being more remote from natural reason than that all should be criminated on account of the guilt of one, and thus his sin become common ; which seems to be the reason why the most ancient doctors of the Church did but obscurely glance at this point, or at least explained it with less perspicuity than it required. Yet this timidity could not prevent Pelagius from arising, who profanely pretended that the sin of Adam only ruined himself, and did not injure his descendants. By concealing the dis- ease with this delusion, Satan attempted to render it incurable. But when it was evinced by the plain testimony of the Scripture that sin was communicated from the first man to all his posterity, he sophistically urged that it was communicated by imitation, not by propagation. Therefore good men, and beyond all others Augustin, have labored to demonstrate that we are not corrupted by any adven- titious means, but that we derive an innate depravity from our very birth. He then cites Ps. li. 5; Job xiv. 4; Kom. v. 12., 19; 1 Cor. xv. 22; Eph. ii. 3; John iii. 5, 6, in support of this view. He pro- ceeds: Nor, to enable us to understand this subject, have we any need to enter on tliat tedious dispute with which the Fatiiers were not a little perplexed, wliether the soul of a son proceeds by derivation or transmission from the soul of the father, because the soul is the principal seat of the pollution. We ought to be satisfied with this, that the Lord deposited with Adam the endowments he chose to confer on human nature, and therefore that when he lost the favors he had received he lost them not only for himself, but for us all. Who will be solicitous about a trans- mission of the soul when he hears that Adam received the ornaments that he lost no less for us than himself? that they were given not to one man only, but to the whole human nature? There is nothing absurd therefore if, in consequence of his being spoiled of his dignities, that nature be destitute and poor, if, in consequence of his being polluted with sin, the whole nature be infected with the contagion. From a putrefied root therefore have sprung putrid branches, which have transmitted Pelagianism^ AugiisUnianism, Arminianisnu 29 their putrescence to remote ramifications. For tlie clilldren were so vitiated in their parent that they became contagions to their descendants: there was in Adam such a spring of corruption that it is transfused from parents to chiklren in a per- petual stream. But the cause of the, contagion is not in the substance of the body or of the soul, but because it was ordained by God that tiie gifts wbich he conferred on the first man should by him be preserved or lost both for himself and for all his posterity. But the cant of the Pelagians, that it is improbable that children should derive corruption from pious parents, wiiereas they ought rather to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted, for they descend from their carnal generation, not from their spiritual generation. Therefore, as Augustin says, " Neither the guilty unbeliever, nor ti)e.justified believer, generates innocent but guilty children, because>the generation of both is from corrupted nature." If they in some meas- ure participate of the sanctity of their parents, that is the peculiar benediction of the people of God, which supersedes not the first and universal curse previously denounced on the human nature: for their guilt is from nature, but their sanctifi- cation from supernatural grace. On Calvin's basis it would seem that he ought not to have evaded the question concerning Creationism and Traducianism, but to have affirmed the latter, from which, however, his master Augustin shrunk. Calvin thus defines original sin : An hereditary pravity and corruption of our nature diffused through all th« parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the divine wrath, and i)roducing in us those works whicli the Scripture calls " works of the flesh." And this is indeed what Paul frequently denominates sin. Tliese two things therefore should be dis- tinctly observed: First, that our nature being so totally vitiated and depraved, we are, on account of this very corruption, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but right- eousness, innocence, and purity. And this liableness to punishment arises not from the delinquency of another; for when it is said that the sin of Adam ren- ders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to be understood as if we, though innocent, v/ere undeservedly loaded with the guilt of his sin; but because we are all subject to a curse, in consequence of his transgression, he is therefore said to have involved us in guilt. Nevertheless, we derive from him, not only the punishment, but also the pollution to which the punishment is justly due. Wherefore Augustin, though he frequently calls it the sin of another, the more clearly to indicate its transmission to us by propagation, yet, at the same time, also asserts it properly to belong to every individual. And the apostle himself expressly declares that "death has therefore passed upon all men, for that all have sinned;" tliat is, have been involved in original sin and defiled with its blemishes. And therefore infants themselves, as they bring their condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to punishment by their own sinfulness, not by the sinfiilness of another. For though they have not yet pro- duced the fruits of their iniquity, yet they have the seed of it within them, even their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Whence it follows that it is properly accounted sin in the sight of God, because there could be no guilt without crime. The other thing 80 Original Of Birth Bin. to be remarked is that this depravity never ceases in us, hut is perpetually pro- ducing new fruits, those works of the flesh which we have before described, like the emission of flame and sparks from a lieated furnace, or like the streams of water from a never-fuiling spring. Wherefore those who have defined original Bin as a privation of the original righteousness, which we ought to possess, though they comprise the whole of the subject, yet have not used language sufliciently expressive of its operation and influence. For our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that It cannot remain inactive, Tliose who liave called it conmpiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, Avhicli is far from being conceded by most persons, that every thing in man, the understanding and will, the Ronl and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence ; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself noth- ing else but concupiscence. . . . We say therefore that man is corrupted by a natural depravity, but which did not originate from nature. We deny that it proceeded from nature, to signify that it is rather an adventitious quality or accident, than a substantial property originally innate; yet we call it natural, that no one may suppose it to be contracted by every individual from corrupt habit, whereas it prevails over all by hereditary right. Nor is this representa- tion of ours without authority; for the same reason the apostle says that we are all by nature the children of wrath. How could God, who is pleased with all his meanest works, be angry with the noblest of his creatures? But he is angry rath- er with the corruption of his work than with the work itself. Therefore if, on account of the corruption of human nature, man be justly said to be naturally abominable to God, he may also be truly said to be naturally depraved and cor- rupt; as Augustin, in consequence of the corruption of nature, hesitates not to call those sins natural which necessarily predominate in our flesh, where they are not prevented by the grace of God. Thus vanishes the foolish and nugatory system of the Manicheans, who, having imagined in man a substantial wickedness, pre- sumed to invent for him a new creator, that they might not appear to assign the cause and origin of evil to a righteous God. This theory of Calvin inTolves the damnation of infants, un- less they are saved from the condemned mass of Adam's poster- ity by the decree of predestination, by which some are elected to be saved and others reprobated. This " horrible decree," as Calvin calls it, is set forth in his third book, where (chap, xxiii. 7), in a bitter reply to objectors, he says: How came it to pass that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve ko many nations with their infant children in eternal death, but because such was the will of God? Their tongues, so loquacious on every other point, must here be struck dumb. It is a horrible decree {decretvM horribile), I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree. We have thus at length presented Calvin's theory of original sin as A development, with a slight modification, of Augustin 's, PelagianisWi Augustiniamsw, Arniimanism, 81 and as the archetype of all the Calvinistic Confessions on this doctrine, and of the writings ot leading Calvinistic divines, many of Avhom affirm, like Augustin and Calvin, that infants not only possess inherent and inherited depravity, but that if they are unbaptized, or non-elect, they are damned for it, though they die before they have lived a single day ! Hence they are called ''the hard fathers of infants." Were this the only explanation of original sin, it would be our bounden duty to renounce it with utter detestation and abhorrence. § 6. Reactions from Calvinism, This execrable caricature of the doctrine had not a little to do in causing its rejection by many, shortly after the Eeformation, and indeed to this day. Thus the Socinians, in their abhorrence of Calvinism, swung over to Pelagianism, and their descendants, the Unitarians, adopt their views. So the Anabaptists. The Anglican Article in the first draught of it, in 1552, reads, " Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, which also the Anabaptists do nowadays receive." Bishop Browne remarks, "Their rejection of infant baptism was of a piece, and naturally connected with their denial of original sin." That is quite likely, though, as we have seen, Pelagius baptized children notwithstanding his denial of original sin; while most of the Anabaptists of the present time — the Gen- eral, Particular, Primitive, and some other sects of Baptists — - indorse the Calvinistic theory of original sin, and yet repudiate infant baptism. Another division of them, however, the Camp- bellites (so-called), are largely tinctured with Pelagianism.* in. Via Media of Arminianism* § 1. Statement of the Arminian View. • Arminius steers clear of Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and gives the true scriptural account of original sin. In liis seventh * We called the attention of one of their preachers to a Pelagian passage in the Gospel Advocate, one of their periodicals, and asked him how many of their min- isters believed it. He said he did not know, but supposed a good many of them, as he did himself. We told him it was Pelagian heresy, but he neither knew nor cared about that — he believed it! 32 Original or Birth Sin. Public Disputation " On the First Sin of the First Man," he says in Propositions xv., xvl, Works I. 485, 486: Tlie proper and immediate effect of this sin was the offending of tlie Deity. For since the form of f*in is the transgression of tlie law" (1 John iii. 4), it pri- marily and immediately [impingiQ strikes against the Legislator himself (Gen. iii. 11), and this with the ofiending of one whose express will it was that his law [non impingi] should not be ofiended. From this violation of liis law, God con- ceives just displeasure, which is the second effect of sin (iii. lG-19, 23, 24). But to anger succeeds infliction of punishment, which was in this instance twofold: (1) [Eeatus^ ^ Hability to two deaths (ii. 17; Rom. vi. 23). (2) IPrivatio] The withdrawing of the primitive righteousness and holiness, which, because they are the effects of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man, ought not to Iiave remained in him after he had fallen from the favor of God, and had incurred the divine displeasure (Luke xix. 2C). For this Spirit is a seal of God's favor and good-will (Rom. viii. 14, 15; 1 Cor. ii. 12).* The whole of this sin, however, is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propagation, according to the primitive bene- diction. For in Adam "all have sinned" (Rom. v. 12). "Wherefore, whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents, has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity. So that all men "are by nature the children of wrath" (Eph. ii. 3), obnoxious to condemnation and to temporal as well as to eter- * nal death; they are also devoid of that original righteousness and holiness (Rom. V. 12, 18, 19). With these evils they would remain oppressed forever unless they were liberated by Christ Jesus; to whom be glory forever. In his Private Disputations he expands this view. Thus Dis. xxxi.. Works II. 78, 79: Because the condition of the covenant into which God entered with our first parents was this, that, if they continued in the favor and grace of God by an ob- servance of this command and of others, the gifts conferred on them should be transmitted to their posterity, by the same divine grace which they had them- selves received; but that if by disobedience they rendered themselves unworthy of those blessings, their posterity likewise [carerenl'] should not possess them, and should be [obnoxii'] liable to the contrary evils. [Hinc accidit ut'] This was the reason why all men who were to be propagated from them in a natural way be- came obnoxious to death temporal and eternal, and [vacue'] devoid of this gift of the Holv Spirit or original righteousness. This punishment usually receives the appellation of "a privation of the image of God," and "original sin." But we permit this question to be made a subject of discussion: Must some contrary quality, besides [carentiam'] the absence of original righteousness, be constituted as another part of original sin? though we think it much more probable that this absence of original righteousness, only, is original sin itself, as being that which alone is sufficient to commit and produce any actual sin whatever. The discussion whether original sin be propagated by the soul or by the body, appears to us to be useless; and therefore the other, wTiether or not the soul be through traduction, seems also scarcely to be necessary to this matter. Pelagianism^ Aurjustinianismy Anninanism, 33 In Lis eleventh Public Disputation lie says (Works 1.526): In tilis state the free-will of man toward the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and [atienvxilmn'] weakened; but it is also [captivatuni] im- jjrisoned, destroyed, and lost, and its powers are not only debilitated and uselesi- unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by divine grace. That this may be made more manifestly to appear, Ave will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and [^polentiam'] the capability, as contradistinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an un- rcgeneratc man. He then proceeds to show the depravity of the mind, affec- tions, and powers, or, as we would express it, the intellect, sensibilities, and will, and also the life of the unregenerate, and closes with an explicit announcement of the doctrine of prevent- ing, continuing, and following grace, as absolutely necessary to the performance of any good thing. Augustin (whom, by the way, in this particular, he quotes and indorses) could not more explicitly set forth the utter impotency of the natural man apart from divine grace. § 2. Points of Difference. Wherein then, it may be asked, does he differ from Angus- tin and Calvin? In this, he holds that all who are lost in Adam are redeemed by Christ: "As by the offense of one judg- ment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the right- eousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- tion of life." (Rom. v. 18.) Hence he censures the opinion of Augustin and others that infants unbaptized, or non-elect, are damned, though not with the punishment of feeling, but only with that of loss. He defends Borrius against the charges of his opponents, who condemned him for holding that all who die in infancy are saved, whether baptized or not, and that none of them are non-elect. If Adam and Eve were allowed to propa- gate their species, though they would transmit to them their depravity, it would be under the merciful provisions of the cov- enant of grace, by which if they die in infancy they must he saved, and if they live to maturity they mai/ he saved, and certainly irill he saved, unless they neglect the great salvation. See his Apology, Articles xiii., xiv. : " Original sin will condemn no man," ^ and "In every nation, all infants who die without [having com- mitted] actual sins, are saved " : articles ascribed to Borrius, Works I. 317-322. Thus the liability to eternal death of the 3 34 Original or Birth Sin. offspring of Adam supposes their rejection of tlie grace offered them in Christ. It is observable that Arminius speaks of a twofold death as the result of the fall: temporal and eternal. We usually speak of a threefold death, but he considers spiritual death as the sin itself. But he also speaks of the fall as the separation of the soul from God, which we call spiritual death, so that there is really no difference between us. What ignorance or impudence have those men who charge Arminius with Pelagianism, or any leaning thereto! The Remonstrants — the followers of Arminius — emphatic- ally re-aJSirmed his opinion, in " the Five Points" presented to the Synod of Dort, and warmly denounced the calumnies of their enemies, who ranked them with Pelagians and Semi-Pelag- ians. They say: " The Avill of man in a lapsed or fallen state, and before th6 call of God, has not the capability and liberty of willing any good that is of a saving nature," etc. They af- firm that "God foresaw that Adam would willfully transgress the law, and thereby make himself and his jposterity liable to condemnation, etc." §3. Methodism Rejects the Semi-Pelagianism of Limborch and Others. \ It is true Limborch and some other Remonstrants who came after, and also Jeremy Taylor, Whitby, and others, who pass under the name of Arminians, by a misnomer, leaned toward Semi-Pelagianism, in asserting that the consequences of the fall consist in a great liability to sin and in subjection to suffering and death, for the removal of which provision is made in the re- demption by Christ. But it is a slander on Arminius and the Ar- minians to call that Arminianism. All true Arminians, e. (/., the Methodists, firmly believe in the doctrine of original or birth sin, as set forth in the Seventh and Eighth Articles of our Confession. Here is what the standard Wesleyan Catechism says on the subject: Q. Into what state did the fall bring mankind? A. The fall brought mankind into a state of sin and misery. Rom. v. 12: " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Q. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that state into which man fell? A. It consists in the want of original righteousness, and th? corruption of his Pelagianism, Angiistinmnisnij A rminiani^ni. 35 whole nature, which is commonly called original sin, together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it. Rom. v. 19: "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Rom. iii. 10: " There is none righteous, no not one." Ps. l"i. 5: "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Q. In what consists the misery of that state into which man fell? A. All mankind being born in sin, and following the devices and desires of their own corrupt hearts, are under the wrath and curse of God, and so are made liable to the miseries of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell hereafter. Eph. ii. .S: " And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Gal. iii. 10: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things whicli are written in the book of the law to do them." Rom. vi. 23: "The wages of sin is death." § 4. Methodist Doctrine of Universal Vicarious Satisfaction for Original Sin. [Methodism, liolcling fast an evangelical Armiiiian theolog}% makes void tlie oft- repeated Calviiiistic charge of "rationalism," *' Pelagianism," etc., by giving an adequate interpretation of Rom. V. 12-21, and incorporating the teachings of this great scripture in its S3'steQi. Paul declares: "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." (Rom. v. 12.) Noth- ing is to be gained by attempting to break tlie force of the aorist in the clause, "for that all sinned." It has its usual force, re- ferring to a momentary occurrence in past time, as opposed to the imperfect, denoting continuous action in the past. Of course the momentary occurrence was the sin and fall of Adam. John Wesley translates"^ and comments as follows: "Even so death 2)asse(l upon all men — namely, by one man, in that — so the word is used also, 2 Cor. v. 4: all sinned — in Adam. These words as- * In liis preface to his " Explanatory Notes on the Xew Testament," from which the above quotation is taken, Mr. "Wesley says: " In order to assist these in such a measure as I am able, I design first to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common Ehrjlish translation, which is, in general (so far as I can judge), abundantly the best that I have seen. Yet I do not say it is incapable of being brought in several places nearer to the original. Xeither will I afBrm that the Greek copies from which this translation was made are always the most correct. And therefore I shall take the liberty, as occasion may require, to make here and there a small alteration." " Of the many points of interest connected with the translation of IGll," say the Revisers of 1881 in the New Testament preface, " two re(piire special notice; first, the Greek text which it appears to have represented; and, secondly, the character of the translation itself." John "Wesley's attitude to- ward such a revision is not difficult to infer. His changes in his New Testament "Notes" often practically coincide with those of the Revision. — T. 36 Original or Birth Sin, sign the reason why death came upon all men; infants themselves not excepted, in that all sinned.'''' It need hardly be said that no personal i^articipation of Adam's posterity in his sin is meant. As Dr. Charles Hodge says ("Commentary on Eomans," p. 236 j, "To say that a man acted thousands or years before his personality began does not rise even to the dignity of a contradiction; it has no meaning at all. It is a monstrous evil to ipake the Bible contradict the common sense and common consciousness of men." Dr. Hodge proceeds to advance his own view that all men "were regarded and treated as sinners on account of Adam's sin:" the ordinary Calvinistic doctrine of "immediate imputation," which offends as much against the moral intuitions as the idea of " personal participa- tion " does against common sense. Dr. SJiedd adopts the view of "personal participation," and against the doctrine of imme- diate imputation" has this to say: "But it makes an infliction more inexplicable, rather than less so, to say that it is visited upon those who did not commit the sin that caused the death, but were fictitiously and gratuitously regarded as if they had." ("Commentary on Romans," p. 125.) "The reader may be re- ferred to the Commentaries of these two writers [Drs. Hodge and Shedd] opposing each other," says President Dwight, of Yale (in Meyer's "Commentary on Eomans," p. 223), "for a satisfac- tory refutation of the views of both." Neither does Paul teach that the death of each of Adam's de- scendants is due to his own personal transgression. This is ex- cluded by the statement and argument of verse 14: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression." Upon this passage Mr. AYesley comments : " Even over infants who had never sinned, as Adam did, in their own persons; and over others, who had not, like him, sinned against an express law." So Meyer: If the death of men after Adam liad been caused by their own sin, then in the case of all those who liave died during the period from Adam to the law, the sin which they have committed must have been already reckoned to them as trans- gression of the law, just as Adam's sin was the transgression of the j)ositive divine command, and as sucli brought upon iiim death ; l>ut this is inconceivable, because the law Avas not in existence. In this Paul leaves out of consideration the Noa- chian commands (Gen. ix.), as well as other declarations of God as to his will given before the law, and likewise individual punitive judgments, such as in the case of Sodom, just because he has only the strict idea of real and formal legisla- Pelagianism, Augustinianism^ Arminianlsm. 37 tion before his miiid, and this suggests to him simply the great epochs of the Par- adisaic and Sinaitic legislations * Dr. Wliedon wholly misappreliends the x\postle on this point. He understands Paul to argue from the presence of death the presence of sin — which is correct — and, further, from the pres- ence of sin the presence of law — which is incorrect. (See AYhe- don's Commentary in loco.) The Apostle seems to reason thus: Death reigned from Adam to Moses; therefore sin covers the same interval; but evidently, argues the Apostle, it is not the visitation of death on account of personal sin, committed after the likeness of Adam's transgression, for before the law, when there was no positive statute with annexed penalty, personal sin was not imputed in the exaction of the penalty of death; never- theless, since death reigned from Adam to Moses, sin under some form was present, therefore — not law and penalty, as Dr. Whedon concludes — this universal death in the patriarchal age was be- cause sin entered into the world, and, like death, passed unto all men, " by one man " — Adam. Compare Dr. A. Clarke on Kom. V. 13, 14. The statement of verse 12, " for that all sinned," is, then, the same as that of verses 18 and 19, translated by Mr. Wesley, "Therefore by one offense the sentence of death came upon all men to condemnation," and " By the disobedience of one man many were constituted sinners." What are we to understand by these three parallel declarations? By a series of exclusions we have already greatly narrowed the field in which we must search for an answer. (1) "Personal participation " of Adam's pos- terity in his sin is out of the question — " does not rise even to the dignity of a contradiction." (2) An arbitrary and artificial transfer of responsibility for Adam's act to his unborn posterity ("immediate imputation"), however cloaked and dignified under the epithet of "judicial," is a pure fiction nowhere taught in the Bible, and is besides a moral monstrosity. (3) Death for per- sonal transgression is excluded by the Apostle's own argument — verses 13, 14. (4) It remains that inherited depravity, "original ) sin," viewed as the uniform source of all evil, which Paul through-| out his Epistles habitually designates as sin, is the ground of di-l vine condemnation. Meyer hesitates to recognize this sin which! ^ " Commentary on Komans," p. 204. 38 Orif/inal or Birth Sin. entered into the world by Adam as "original sin" in the strict theological sense: the Apostle perhaps did not have in his mind an idea exactly coincident with the subsequently formulated dogma; yet Meyer regards this sin as "the determination of the conduct in antayonisni to God, conceived, however, as ^ force, as a real power working and manifesting itself, exercising its domin- ion, in all cases of concrete sin. This moral mode of being in antagonism to God became existent in the human world through the fall of Adam, produced death, and spread death over all. Thus our verse itself describes the aimpzia as a real objective poicer, and in so doing admits only of thifi explanation." * This doctrine, as Meyer says in another place (p. 208), "necessarily presupposes in respect to Adam's posterity the habitual want of justitia orifjinalis and the possession of concupiscence." Little exception can be taken to the following statements of Dr. Whedon : Adam, separated by sin from the Holy Spirit, was a naturally disposed sinjier and, shut from the tree of life, a natural mortal; and so by the law of descent his posterity are naturally disposed sinners, and both naturally and penally mortal. . . . . "All men sin"— such is their nature — when their probation presents itself. Such being their normal action, such must be their permanent nature. And infants are of the same nature, they needing only the possible conditions for actual sinning. The sentence of universal death must stand, therefore, because in the divine view men are by nature universal sinners, t This universal sinfulness of human nature, therefore, is the ground of the divine displacency and the condemnation of death: so by the disobedience of one man many were constituted sin- ners. ' Accepting then the teachings of this scripture, without seek- • ing to avoid or abate its force, how has Methodism secured for the condemned race a standing-place before God? This is our final inquiry. Methodism clearly perceives that to admit that mankind are actually born into the world justly under condem- nation is to grant the foundation of the whole Calvinistic scheme. Granted natal desert of damnation, there can be no valid objec- tion to the sovereign election of a few out of the reprobate mass, or to limited atonement, irresistible grace, and final perseverance to secure the present and eternal salvation of the sovereignly predestinated number—" to .the praise of the glory of his grace." * Meyer, "Commentary on Romans," p. 195. Italics Meyer's, t " Commentary on Romans," pp. 327, 328. Felagicoiianiy Aiiyustiniamsm, Arminianism. 39 As Watsou pertinently says: It is an easy and plausible thing to say, in the usual loose and general manner of stating the sublapsarian doctrine, that the wlioje race having fallen in Adam, and become justly liable to eternal death, God might, without any impeachment of Ills justice, in the exercise of his sovereign grace, appoint some to life and sal- vation by Christ, and leave the others to their deserved punishment.^ Kepresentative theologians of Methodism from the beginning until now, from Fletcher to Pope, have overthrown this funda- mental teaching of Calvinism with the express statement of the Scriptures, setting over against the death-dealing first Adam the life-giving Second. If a decree of condemnation has been issued against original sin, irresponsibly derived from the first Adam, likewise a decree of justification has issued from the same court, whose benefits are unconditionally bestowed through the Second Adam. "Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Rom. v. 18, 19.) The first member of each of these verses is fully balanced and reversed by the second member. Had not the intervention of the Second Adam been foreseen, universally making and constituting righteous all who were made and consti- tuted sinners, Adam would never have been permitted to prop- agate his species, and the race would have been cut off in its sin- ning head. Let us now hear the teachers of Methodism, and first the saintly Fletcher. In his "Third Check to Antinomianism " (Works, Vol. I., p. 161), he says: As we have considered three of the walls of your tower, it will not be amiss to cast a look upon the fourth; whicli is the utterly confounding of i\\Q four degrees that make up a glorified saint's eternal justification: 1. That which passes upon all infants universally, and is thus described by St. Paul: "As by the ofl^enseof one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men, unto present justification from original sin and future justification of life," upon their repenting and "believing in the light during the day of their visitation." In" consequence of this degree of justification, we may, witliout impeaching the veracity of God, say to every cre^iture, "(lod so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son to reconcile them unto himself, not imputing to them " original sin mito eter- nal death, and blotting out tlieir personal transgressions in the moment "they believe with the lieart unto righteousness." " Institutes," p. 5S0. 40 Original or Birth Sin. Fletcher then proceeds to his account of the other three " de- grees " of justification, namely: Justification, or the pardon of actual sins, consequent upon believing; " justification consequent upon bringing forth the fruit of a lively faith "—the- justification by works of St. James; and, finally, justification at the day of judgment. He concludes (t). 162): All these degrees of justification are equally merited by Christ. We do noth- ing in order to \.\\e Jin^t, because it finds us in a state of total deatii. Toward the second we believe by the power freely given us in the first, and by the additional help of Christ's word and the Spirit's agency. We work by faith in order to the third. And we continue believing in Christ and working together with God, as we have opportunity, in order to i\\Q fourth. The preaching distinctly these four degrees of a glorified saint's justification is attended with peculiar advantages. The /ns/ justification engages the sinner's at- tention, encourages his hope, and draws his heart by love. The second wounds the self-righteous Pharisee, who works without believing, while it binds up the heart of the returning publican, w])o has no plea but " God be merciful to me a sinner! " The third detects the hypocrisy and blasts the vain hopes of all Antinomians, who, instead of "showing their faith by their works, deny in works the Lord that bought them, and put him to an open shame." And Avhile the fourth makes even II "Felix tremble," it causes believers to "pass the time of their sojourning here in humble fear" and cheerful watchfulness. Though all these degrees of justification meet in glorified saints, we oflfer vio- lence to Scripture if we think, Avith Dr. Crisp, that they are inseparable. For all the wicked who "quench the eonvincimj Spirit," and are finally given up to a rep- robate mind, fall from the first, as well as Pharaoh. All who "receive the seed among thorns," all who "do not forgive their fellow-servants," all who "begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh," and all "who draw back," and become sons or daughters of "perdition," by falling from the third, lose the second as Hyme- neus, Philetus, and Demas. A nd none partake of the fourth but those who " ])ear fruit unto perfection," according to one or to another of the Divine dispen- sations; " some producing thirty-fold," like heathens, " some sixty-fold," like Jews, and "some a hundred-fold," like Christians. From the whole it appears, that although we can absolutely do nothing to^vard our first justification, yet to say that neither faith nor*works are required in order to the other three, is one of the boldest, most unscriptural, and most dangerous assertions in the world; which sets aside the best half of the Scriptures, and lets gross Antinomianism come in full tide upon the Church. In the "Fourth Check to Antinomianism," Letter X. to Messrs. Eichard and Eowland Hill (AYorks, Vol. I., pp. 283-285 j, Mr. Fletcher resumes the subject as follows: In the Third Check (pp. IGl and 162), to make my readers sensible that Cal- vinism has confusion, and not Scripture, for its foundation, I made a scriptural distinction between the four degrees that constitute a saint's eternal justification, and each of these degrees I called a justification, be.cause I thought I could speak Pelagianism, Aucjustinianism, Arminianism. 41 as the oracles of God, without exposing the truth of the gospel to the smiles of Christian wits. 1. From Rom. v. 18 I proved the justification of infants: "As by the oflense of Adam (says the apostle) judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of Christ the free gift came upon all men to justification of life." In support of this justification, which comes upon all men in their in- fancy, I now advance the following argutnents: 1. The Scripture tells us that " Christ in all things hath the pre-eminence." Rut if Adam is a more public person, a more general representative of mankind, than Jesus Christ, it is plain that in this grand respect Adam hath the pre-em- inence over Christ. Now, as this cannot be, as Christ is at least equal to Adam, it follows that as Adam brought a general condemnation and a universal seed of death upon all infants, so Christ brings upon them a general justification, and a universal seed of life. 2. I never yet saw a Calvinist who denied that Christ died for Adam. Now, if the Redeemer died for our first parent, he undoubtedly expiated the original sin, the first transgression of Adam. And if Adam's original sin was atoned for and forgiven to him, as the Calvinists, I think, generally grant, does it not follow that altiiough all infants are by nature children of wrath, yet through the redemp- tion of Christ they are in a state of favor or justification? For how could God damn to all eternity any of Adam's children for a sin which Christ expiated — a sin which was forgiven almost six thousand years ago to Adam, who committed it in person? 3. The force of this observation would strike our Calvinist brethren, if they consider that we were not less in Adam's loins when God gave his Son to Adam in the grand, original Gospel promise, than when Eve prevailed upon him to eat of the forbidden fruit. As all in him were included in the covenant of perfect obedience before the fall, so all in him were likewise interested in the covenant of grace and mercy after the fall. And we have full as much reason to believe that some of Adam's children never fell with him from a state of probation, according to the old covenant, as to suppose that some of them never rose with him to a state of probation, upon the terms of the new covenant, whicli stands upon better promises. Thus, if we all received an imspeakable injury by being seminally in Adam Avhen he fell, according to the first covenant, we all received also an unspeakable blessing by being in his loins when God spiritually raised him up, and placed liim upon gospel ground. Nay, the blessing which we have in Christ is far su- perior to the curse which Adam entailed upon us: Ave stand our trial upon much more advantageous terms than Adam did in Paradise. For according to the first covenant, "judgment was by one offense to condemnation." One sin sunk the transgressor. But according to the free gift, or second covenant, provision is made in Christ for repenting of, and rising from "many offenses unto justification." (Rom. V. 16.) 4. Calvinists are now ashamed of consigning infants to the torments of hell; they begin to extend their election to them all. Even the translator of Zanchius beli2ves that all children who die in their infiincy are saved. Now, sir, if all children, or any of them, are saved, they are unconditionally justified according to our plan; for they cannot be "justified by faith," according to St. Paul's doc- trine (Rom. V. 1), as it is granted that those who are not capable of understand- ^2 Original or Birth Sin, ing are not capable of believing. Nor can they be "justified by works," accord- ing to St. James's doctrine, chap. ii. 24, for they are not accountable for their works who do not know good from evil nor their right hand from their left Kor can they be justified by words, according to our Lord's doctrine (Matt xii 37)' because tlfey cannot yet form one articulate sound. It follows, then that all in' fants must be damned, or justified without faith, words, or works, according to our hrst distinction. But as you believe they are saved, the first degree of an adult saint's justification is not less founded upon your own sentiments than upon reason and scripture. Dr. Wilbur Fisk, commenting on Rom. v. 18, says: Guilt is not imputed until, by a voluntary rejection of the gospel, man makes the depravity of his nature the object of his own choice. Hence, although ab- stractly considered, this depravity is destructive to the possessors, yet through the grace of the gospel all are born free from condemnation. Dr. AYhedon, though in a correspondence with the writer some- what inclined to depreciate the doctrine here set forth, uses this language (" Commentary on Eomans," p. 330): From Adam the continued race is, by the law of natural descent, born and con- fctituted sinners. Yet justification by Christ overlies the condemnation at birth; and even when forfeited by sin may, by repentance and faith, be recovered and mature into holiness and eternal life. In his comment on Eph. ii. 3, after a protracted discussion, Dr. AVhedon concedes: "If, however, we must say that infants 'sinned in Adam,' let us be consistent, and add, *but they also became justified in Christ.'" Certainly: that is the Apostle's teaching, and " beauty, truth, and reason are the outcome." Dr. Miner Raymond, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Garrett Biblical Institute of the Methodist Episcopal Church, employs this language: The fact, as we see it, is that the race came into existence under grace. But for redemption the race had become extinct in the first pair, and the posterity of Adam would never have had personal, individual existence. Not only is exist- ence secured for the posterity of Adam by the Second Adam, but also justification. From whatever of the displeasure or wrath of God, or condemnation that theoret- ically rested upon the race, because of corruption or guilt accruing from the first sin, they arc justified through Christ. (Rom. v. 18.) Not only does man come to conscious being, sustaining the relation of a justified, pardoned sinner, but as such lie is entitled to and actually possesses all the requisitesof a fair probation. AVhat- ever influences and agencies of the Holy Spirit are necessary to qualify him for the exercise of free moral choices are graciously vouchsafed to him.'^'' In a valuable article in the " Wesley Memorial Volume," edited by Dr. J. O. A. Clarke, Dr. Pope gives a luminous, though * "Systematic Theology," Vol. H., pp. 84, 85. Pelagianism, Augustin ianism, Arminianism. 43 greatly condensed, epitome of Methodist doctrine. Our discus- sion of this subject may well include the following comprehen- sive presentation of Methodist teaching: The sin of Adam was expiated as representing the sin of tlie race as such, or of liuman nature, or of mankind: a realistic conception whicli was not borrowed from philosophic realism, and which no nominalism can ever really dislodge from the New Testament. "Christ gave himself as the Mediator of God and men, a ran-* som for all before any existed ; and this oblation before the foundation of the world Avas to be testified in due time, that individual sinners might know themselves to be members of a race vicariously saved as such." This free paraphrase of St. Paul's last testimony [in 1 Tim. ii. 4-6] does not overstrain its teaching, that the virtue of the great reconciliation abolished the sentence of death in all its mean- ing, as resting upon the posterity of Adam. In this sense .it was absolutely vica- rious; the transaction in the mind and purpose of the most Holy Trinity did not take our presence or concurrence^only our sin, into account. Therefore the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world was, as it respects the race of Adam, an absolutely vicarious sacrifice. The reconciliation of God to the world — tlie atone- ment proper — must be carried up to the awful sanctuary of the Divine Trinitarian essence. When the atonement is translated into time, set forth upon the cross, and administered by the Spirit, the simple and purely vicarious idea is modified. . . . With these modifications, as it respects the individual believer, does Methodism hold fast the doctrine of a universal vicarious satisfaction for the race. But marked prominence must be given to the consistency with which the univer- sal benefit of the atonement has been carried out in its relation to original sin and the estate of the unregenerate world before God. Methodism not only holds that the condemnation of the original sin lias been reversed; it also holds that the Holy Spirit, the source of all good, is given back to mankind in his preliminary influences as the Spirit of the coming Christ, the Desired of tlie nations.*' The foregoing doctrine is twice taught in the Articles of Re- ligion as revised by Mr. AVesley. Article II. asserts that Christ is "a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." And Article XX. teaches that Christ is a " satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual." In connection with this teaching of the Methodist Articles it must be kept in mind that Mr. Wesley deliberately omitted *■ "Wesley Memorial Volume," Art. " Methodist Doctrine," by Dr. W. B. Pope, pp. 177, 178. With this compare Pope's expanded treatment of the doctrine of Original Sin, "Compendium," Vol. IL, pp. 47-86; also his presentation of the "Finished Atonement" in the same volume, pp. 213-316. On p. 81 Pope quotes from Wesley a passage which I have not been able to find in his works, as follows: " That by the oflTense of one judgment came upon all men (all born into the world) to condemnation is an undoubted truth, and aflfects every infant, as well as every adult person. But it is equally true that by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men (all born into the world, infants and adults) unto justification." — T. 44 Original or Birth Sin. from the Ninth English Article the words, *'so that the tlesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit, and, therefore, in every per- son born into this w^orld it deserves God's wrath and damnation, ' etc. If, then, Mr. Wesley, in formulating the Confession of Amer- ican Methodism, expresfely declined to assert that original sin "deserveth God's wrath and damnation" for every person at the time of his birth; and if he still embodied in this Methodist Creed the doctrine that Christ is a sacrifice for original sin and guilt: from these two premises the conclusion irresistibly follows that Mr. Wesley held, and intended the Confession of American Methodists to express, that Christ made a universal and uncon- ditional atonement for original sin. Mr. Wesley, in the last years of his life, in the full maturity of his knowledge, judgment, and experience, when engaged in the performance of the important task of giving a confession of faith to a new Church, as an Ar- minian theologian formulating the doctrine of an Arminian Church, denies that original sin "in every person born into the world deserveth God's wrath and damnation," and this because Christ is a sacrifice for original guilt. Thus is the dogma of Christ's unconditional vicarious satisfaction for original sin deeply set in the fabric of Methodist doctrine.] ft CHAPTER II. THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE: DEFENSE AND PROOF. In the foregoing history of this article, and the errors to which it is opposed, we have expounded the doctrine which it pro- pounds. It now remains to make a few additional explanations and to advance the proof of this important doctrine. §1. The Phrase "Original Sin" Explained and Defended. Exceptions have been taken to' the phrase "original sin," as applied to this subject; but with no very good reason. Were we indeed called upon to name the evil in question, we should not perhaps call it with TertuUian, vithim onginis, or with Augus- tin, orlfjiiiale peccatiini^ but rather peccatum nciturale, using the word natural, as Tertullian says, quodammodo, in a certain man- ner, namely, to designate the evil that has become man's second nature; and not proprie nafurale — properly natural— the first nat- ure of man, that which he received from his Creator. This dis- tinction meets the objection of those who cavil at the use of the phrase " natural depravity," *' sin of our nature," or the like. The title of the article which furnishes a synonym for "Original," namely, "Birth Sin," shows that " Original Sin " does not mean the act of our first parents in eating the forbidden fruit: not the act itself, of course, for their posterity did not perform that act; nor the imputation of it, though in a certain sense that act is im- puted to them. The human species is viewed as a solidarity, and it is represented by its head, commonly called its "federal head," because the covenant of life and death was made with him for himself and posterity. If he had not fallen, he would have propa- gated his species in innocence and happiness, and, continuing in that state, they would have been immortal, either on earth or in another sphere. But as lie fell, his posterity would have per- ished in him, if the penalty threatened had Jbeen instantly en- forced; but as a gracious reprieve wa^ granted through the re- demption of Christ, his posterity, though inheriting from him a depraved nature, share with him in all the blessings of the new (45) 46 Original or Birth Sin, covenant administered by the Second Adam, who thus restores •'the ruins of the first." § 2. Imputation Mediate, not Immediate. This imputation is mediate, not i in mediate, as the schoolmen ^ . speak. Immediate imputation would make us pers^^nally resj^on- sible for Adam's sin, as if we had committed the act ourselves. This is impious and absurd. Mediate imputation implies a lia- bility to death spiritual, temporal, and eternal, in consequence ( of Adam's sin, which would not have been personally realized / by his posterity, who would have died seminally in him, if re- demption had not been provided; but as that redemption has been provided for every man, though every man is liable to suf- fer all these consequences of the fall, yet tbey all may be reversed or overruled for good in the case of every man. The attainder of the treason of our forefathers is set aside in our case if we "receive the atonement;" and the temporal evils ending in the death of the body may be all overruled for our good, through this gracious economy. Thus, while Adam's sin makes guilty all his sons, none of them have any occasion to complain of ttie injustice of this imputation, because " where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so mJght grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom. v. 20, 21.) §o. Negative and Positive Definition of Original Sin. The article however ignores the word imputation : perhaps be- cause of its ambiguity. It defines original sin," negatively and postively. Negatively, it does not consist in the following of Adam: i)i imitatione Ada mi. This we have seen, as the article says, is "as the Pelagians do vainly talk." Original or birth sin is predicated of infants who are incapable of committing actual sin. Positively, " it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually," In the Anglican Article it is "the fault and corruption:*' vitium et depravatio, the w^ord vitium being borrowed from TertuUian. It seems to be used as a synonym of deprnvntio, "corruption," the latter word defin- ing the former, and the form.er the latter, the more certainly to fix the sense. But our English word " fault " is generally used, in The Arminian Doctrine: Defent^e ami Proof, 47 a moral sense, to express our actual deviation from virtue, or something less than a crime, while corruption expresses the in- ward character; the latter word is sufficient, and the former mav be spared. It is not to be understood of any essential change wrought in the substance of the soul, which is to us incompre- hensible; nor of the positive infusion of evil into the soul; but it is the loss of original righteousness, and the incapacity for any good, and the liability to all evil which result from it. Armin- ius says, " We think that this absence alone of original right- eousness is original sin itself;" but he well adds, "since it alone is sufficient for the commission and production of every actual sin whatever." This makes his statement agree with the more precise language of "Watson: Tliis is by some divines called, with great aptness, "a cfepravation arisins^ from a deprivation,'" and is certainly much more consonant with the iScriptures than the opinion of the infusion of evil qualities into the nature of man hy a positive cause or direct tainting of the heart. This has been, indeed, probably an opinion in the proper sense, with few, and has rather been collecte