testifies that he held and taught "That the sin of Adam hurt himself alone, and that infants are born in that state in which Adam was before he sinned." Julian maintained the same doctrine, which he repeatedly expresses and pertinaciously defends: "Human nature," says he, "in the time of our being born, is rich in the gift of innocence." Again, "Even if the devil should create men, they would be free from all evil in their origin; and so now they cannot be born in sin, because no one can help being born, nor can it be just to demand from any one, what is to him altogether impossible." The same says, "There is no sin in the condition of our nature." And, "Nobody is born with sin; but our free will is so entirely unimpaired, that before the exercise of our own proper will, nature in every one is free from every taint." Hence Prosper, in his Chronicon for the year 414, has this remark, "About this time Pelagius the Briton published his doctrine, that the sin of Adam injured himself alone, and did not affect his posterity; and that all infants are born as free from sin as Adam was before his transgression." It cannot be a matter of surprise that the Pelagians held that Adam's posterity inherited from him a corrupt nature, when they did not believe that his own nature was deteriorated by sinning. Julian, therefore, says, "A man's natural state is not changed by sinning, but he becomes guilty and the subject of demerit; for it is of the very essence of free will that the man should have it in his power as much to cease from sinning as to deviate from the path of rectitude."

In opposition to these opinions, the doctors of the catholic church held, that all the posterity of Adam were now destitute of original righteousness, with which he was endowed, and hence proceeds an inordinate exercise of all the powers of the mind, which is called the fuel of sin, the law in the members, concupiscence, &c.

Augustine is full and explicit on this subject. Lib. xxi. c. 3, De Civitate Dei, he says, "On account of the greatness of the crime, the nature of man was changed in its punishment; so that what was inflicted as a punishment on our sinning first parents, comes naturally on others born of them." Again, lib. xiv. c. 12, "Human nature was changed by the sin of the first pair; so that a silent corruption pervades it, such as we see and feel, and by reason of which we are subjected to death, and to so many and great evils, and are disturbed and agitated with so many contrary and

conflicting passions, such as had no existence in paradise before man sinned, although he was there invested with an animal body." Also, "How else shall we account for that horrible depth of ignorance, from which all error originates, by which all the sons of Adam are involved in a certain dark gulf, from which they cannot be delivered without labour, sorrow and fear." Speaking again of the many kinds of vices to which men are subject, he adds, "All these sins of wicked men proceed from the same root of error and perverse love with which every child of Adam is born."

Prosper also expresses himself strongly on this subject. "By the wound of original sin the nature of all men is corrupted and mortified in Adam, whence the disease of all manner of concupiscence hath sprung up." The same writer says, in another place, "Whence is it, that if what Adam lost his posterity did not lose; he himself is not alone the sufferer by his sin, and not his posterity? but the truth is all have sinned in one, and every branch from this corrupt root is justly condemned. What Adam lost, then, by the fall, all have likewise lost."

The writer concerning the Vocation of the Gentiles, lib. i. c. 6, has these words, "Human nature was vitiated by the transgression of the first man; so that even in the reception of blessings, and in the midst of helps and divine precepts, there is a continual proclivity of the will to evil; in which, as often as we confide, we are deceived." Again, "All men were created in the first man without fault; and we all have lost the integrity of our nature by his transgression." "Adam was by nature free from sin, but by the disobedience of his will he contracted many evils, and transmitted them to be multiplied more and more by his posterity."

Vincentius Lyra asks, "Who, before Cœlestius, that monstrous disciple of Pelagius, ever denied that the whole human race was held guilty of Adam's sin ?"

Peter, the deacon, in his book concerning the Incarnation, says, "Therefore, seduced by the cunning of the serpent, of his own accord he became a transgressor of the divine law; and so, agreeably to the threatening, he was in the just judgment of God condemned to the punishment of death; that is, both body and mind were changed for the worse, and having lost liberty, he was enslaved under the servitude of sin; hence it is that no man is born who is not

bound by the bond of this sin, with the exception of Him who was born by a new mode of generation, that he might loose the bond of sin; even the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."

It was also a doctrine of the Pelagians, that temporal death was by the necessity of nature, and did not fall on the human race in consequence of the sin of our first parents. They alleged that Adam would have died, although he had never sinned. Very far then were they from acknowledging that we had incurred eternal death by the sin of Adam. Augustine relates, that it was one of the charges against Pelagius, in Palestine, that he held the doctrine of Colestius," that neither by the death nor transgression of Adam do the whole human race die, nor do the whole human race rise from the dead in virtue of Christ's resurrection." 66 Death," said he, "passed to the posterity of Adam by imitation of his sin, not by generation." Augustine, in his last answer to Julian, addresses him thus, will not agree that by reason of original sin death passes on the human race, for then you would be forced to acknowledge that sin had been propagated through all our race. For you cannot but perceive how unjust it would be to inflict punishment where there is no guilt."

Orosius, against Pelagius, has these words, "Your followers, who have sucked the poison abundantly from your breast, assert, that man was made mortal, and that he incurred no loss from the transgression of the precept." And the writer of the Hypognosticon says, speaking of the Pelagians, "They tell us, that whether Adam had sinned or not, he would have died."

On the other hand, the orthodox maintained "That death, temporal and eternal, together with all pains and diseases connected with the death of the body, flow from the first sin; and that unless Adam had sinned he never would have died."

Augustine fully expresses the opinion of the church catholic in his book De Peccat. Mer. et Remiss. "Although, as to his body, he was of the earth, and partook of an animal nature, yet if he had not sinned, his body would have been changed into a spiritual body, and into that incorruptibility which is promised to the saints at the resurrection.' Again, "If Adam had not sinned he never would have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed with immortality and incorruption; so that mortality would have

been swallowed up of life; that is, there would have been a transition from animal to spiritual life." "According to my judgment, he had a resource in the fruits of the trees of the garden against the decays of nature, and in the tree of life against old age." "So great a sin was committed by the first two of our race, that human nature underwent a change for the worse: also the obligation of their sin and the necessity of dying have been transmitted to posterity. And the reign of death over men will prevail until due punishment shall precipitate into the second death which has no end, all except those whom the unmerited grace of God shall bring into a state of salvation."

From this last question arose another. Why are infants baptized; and if they should depart without baptism, in what state do they deserve to be placed? Pelagius, lest he should be obliged to confess that they were under the bond of original sin, and by their birth exposed to eternal death, denied that they received baptism for the remission of the guilt of the first sin, or that they might be translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of God. Thus Augustine declares "That the Pelagians will not believe that original sin is removed by baptism, for they contend that no such thing exists in those just born." Hence many inferred that they did not believe that infants were redeemed by Christ; and some affirmed that they denied the propriety of the baptism of infants altogether. But Pelagius, in the book which he addressed to Innocent, bishop of Rome, clears himself from imputations of this kind. "Who was ever so impious," says he, "as to wish to interdict infants from a share in the common redemption of the human race?" And the council of Carthage acknowledges that Coelestius admitted the redemption of infants. Augustine also, in his 89th epistle, addressed to Hilary, among other things says, "He was forced to confess, on account of the baptism of infants, that redemption was necessary for them also. Where, although he was unwilling to speak explicitly concerning original sin, yet by the very naming of redemption he involved himself in difficulty; for from what should they be redeemed but from the power of the devil, under which they could not be unless they were under the guilt of original sin? Or with what price are they redeemed, unless with the blood of Christ, concerning which it is most manifestly declared, that it was shed for the remission of sins?" But Pelagius put

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