count of the decisions of the several councils which met for the consideration of this subject, in their chronological order.

The first was the council of Carthage, convened, A.D. 407, on account of the dissemination by Coelestius of the opinions of Pelagius, which also he pertinaciously defended. Of the proceedings of this council no fragment remains but one preserved in Augustine's work on original sin. Mention is made of this council, however, in the letter of the fathers of the second council of Carthage, addressed to Innocent. From the fragment preserved by Augustine, we learn that the accusation against Colestius was, that he had taught "that the sin of Adam hurt himself alone." Colestius acknowledged that he had doubted concerning the communication of sin by descent from Adam; but professed his willingness to be better instructed by those to whom God had given greater wisdom; yet observed that he had heard from presbyters of the church a doctrine different from that which was held by the council. And being called upon to name one from whom he had heard such an opinion, he mentioned Rufin, a holy presbyter of Rome. On being asked whether he had not asserted that infants are born in the same state in which Adam was before transgression, he would make no other reply but "that infants needed baptism, and ought to be baptized."

The council of Diospolis, in Palestine, consisted, as has been mentioned before, of only fourteen bishops. The accusers of Pelagius were not able to attend; one of them being prevented by sickness, and the other by some other

cause.

Augustine mentions this council in several of his works, and ascribes the acquittal of Pelagius to his artful use of equivocal terms, by which his judges were deceived, and were induced to pronounce him innocent.

Jerome, in his seventy-ninth epistle, calls this " a miserable synod;" and says, that although they did not err in doctrine, they were deceived in the man, who deceitfully seemed to condemn his own opinions. Photius, in his Bibliotheca, gives a more particular account of this council; but his information seems to have been derived from the works of Augustine, already referred to.

A.D. 416. Another council met at Carthage, which has already been noticed; not convened, indeed, to attend to

this controversy; but Prosius having brought intelligence respecting the proceedings instituted against Pelagius in Palestine, the fathers of this council took up the business, and wrote a letter to Innocent, in which they expressed their opinion freely and fully, relative to the heresy of the opinions of which Pelagius was accused, and of the course which ought to be pursued in regard to him, if he did not explicitly abjure them. Sixty-seven pastors were present at this synod.

About the same time, or a little later, a synod met at Milevum, in Numidia, consisting of sixty bishops or pastors, who took up the subject of the errors of Pelagius and Colestius, and, in imitation of the council of Carthage, addressed a letter to Innocent, bishop of Rome.

It appears from several notices in the writings of Augustine, that another full synod met in Africa, and addressed letters on this subject to Zosimus, the successor of Innocent; but all trace of the acts and proceedings of this council, except the short notices referred to above, have disappeared. This synod is said to have consisted of two hundred and twenty-four bishops, and is supposed to have been held A.D. 417 or 418. But great obscurity rests upon the whole matter.

A.D. 428. When Coelestinus was bishop of Rome, a council was held in Gaul, occasioned by a deputation from Britain, who represented that the poison of Pelagianism had been imported into that country by one Agricola, the son of Jenerianus, a bishop; and that they greatly needed aid to prevent its diffusion among the people. On this occasion a large council convened, and two eminent men, Germanus and Lupus, were sent on a mission to Britain to check the progress of Pelagianism. By their exertions the catholic doctrine appeared to be every where restored: but no sooner had they taken their departure than heresy began again to germinate; so that the request to the Gallican church for help was repeated, and Germanus was again sent, and was accompanied by Severus, a disciple of Lupus, his former colleague. The witnesses for these facts are Constantius, in his Life of Germanus, and Bede, in his History of the British Churches.

The next council in which the subject of Pelagianism was brought up for consideration, was that of Ephesus, A.D. 431. This is called an oecumenical council. It was convened

not on account of the heresy of Pelagius, but to condemn Nestorianism; but as the followers of Pelagius would not join in the censure of Nestorius, the council expressed their disapprobation of that heresy also, which they denominate the wicked doctrine of Cœlestius. And in their synodical epistle to Cœlestinus, bishop of Rome, they approve of the sentence of condemnation which had been passed on Pelagius, Cœlestius, Julian, and their abettors, whom they call impious men.

The Pelagian doctrine was next condemned in a council which met at Arles, in France; the exact year is not settled. This synod denounced an anathema against the impious doctrines of Pelagius; and especially against the opinion that man was born without sin; and that he could be saved by his own exertions. They considered it a presumption worthy to be condemned for any man to believe that he could be saved without grace.

The council of Lyons met soon after that of Arles, and approved its decrees; but some other doctrines were also brought under consideration, and subjected to censure.

A.D. 494. Gelasius, bishop of Rome, convened a council of seventy bishops in that city, by whom the writings of Augustine and Prosper were approved and recommended; while those of the semi-Pelagians, Cassian and Faustus, were censured.

Other councils were held in after ages, which condemned the Pelagian heresy; but our object now is to give a view of this controversy in its first rise, in the fifth century.

Before we proceed to give a view of the opinions entertained and propagated by Pelagius and his followers, it will be satisfactory to ascertain what were the opinions of the church on this subject.

The doctrine of the church, then, on the subject of original sin, may be thus stated. It has ever been the judgment of the catholic church, that the first sin of Adam was imputed to all his posterity by the righteous appointment of God; and that its effects are transmitted to all his children; which effects, the church always believed, were, that they were born destitute of original righteousness, subject to the sentence of death, and obnoxious to eternal separation from God.

Man being created in the image of God, and being fully endued with all powers necessary for obedience; and, moreM

over, being blessed with every thing requisite for his comfort, did transgress the law of his Maker by disobeying that commandment which was given as a test of his whole obedience.

This first act of transgression, it is true, was the criminal act of Adam as an individual; but as he was the root and principle of our whole nature, it may be considered the sin of the human race: so that his voluntary act, in opposition to the will of his Creator, may be reckoned that of his descendants; not indeed strictly and properly, (for those not yet born could not perform an act), but interpretatively, or by imputation; for this act was not only imputed to Adam to condemnation, but to all his posterity.

That the above is a correct statement of the commonly received doctrine of the church, at the period of which we treat, will appear from many explicit declarations, not only of Augustine and other individuals, but from the decrees and letters of councils, consisting of numerous bishops, living in every region of the earth to which the universal church extended.

Augustine, in book xvi. of his work De Civitate Dei, has these words, "Nascuntur, non proprie, sed originaliter, peccatores.' "Men are born, not properly, but originally, sinners." And in book i. c. 15 of his Retractions, he says, "Peccatum eos ex Adam dicimus originaliter trahere; id est, reatu eos implicatos, et ob hoc pœnæ obnoxios detineri." We affirm that they derive sin originally from Adam; that is, they are involved in guilt, and on this account are held liable to punishment.

In his work concerning the demerit and remission of sins, he says, that to impute and to remit are opposites; therefore he asserts, to impute is to subject one to guilt; to remit is, not to impute to condemnation. Here it may be proper to remark, that by imputation Augustine meant, not a transfer of moral acts or moral character, but the opposite of remission; to impute a sin, therefore, according to him, is to hold the person bound to suffer its punishment. And by the word reatus, or guilt, he understood an obligation to suffer the punishment of sin, or a subjection to the penalty of the law. It is necessary to understand accurately the meaning of these terms, as used by theologians, or we shall be involved in perpetual perplexity in relation to their opinions. Most of the objections now made to the doctrine of

imputation, and to the transfer of guilt, proceed from a misapprehension of the true import of these terms. We, therefore, hear a great deal of declamation respecting the impossibility of making a transfer of moral character; and respecting the impossibility of ever removing the guilt of a sinner; but if the exact meaning of these terms was apprehended, the supposed difficulty or absurdity would vanish. For, although personal acts cannot be transferred, the consequences or legal penalties of those acts may be transferred; and although the ill-desert of one man cannot be transferred to another, the punishment due to one can be inflicted on another.

But to return, Augustine says again, book xiv. c. 11, De Civitate Dei, "A duobus primis transmissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam in posteros obligatione peccati, et mortis necessitate transmissa." Which may be thus rendered into English: "From the first pair so great a sin has been transmitted, that by it human nature is changed for the worse: also the bond of iniquity and the necessity of death are transmitted to their posterity."

And this manner of speaking of original sin was not peculiar to Augustine; for we find the same sort of language in Bernard. When speaking of the first sin, he has the following words: "Aliena est quia in Adam omnes nescientes peccavimus; nostra, quia, etsi in alio, nos tamen peccavimus, et nobis justo Dei judicio imputatur." The meaning of which is, "That this first sin, of which he is here treating, was another's, inasmuch as in Adam we sinned; being unconscious of it, our own, inasmuch as, although by another, yet we ourselves have sinned, and in the just judgment of God it is imputed to us."

Nicolas Lyra, who lived about four hundred years ago, speaks the same language when explaining the fifth of Romans. "Peccatum Adæ imputatur omnibus ab eo descendentibus, secundum vim generativam, quod sic sunt membra ejus, propter quod vacatur peccatum originale." A literal translation of which is, "The sin of Adam is imputed to all descending from him by natural generation, because they are his members, on which account it is called original sin."

And the later writers, until the council of Trent, do not deviate from this language of the ancient church. Cajetan, commenting on the same, (Romans v.) says, "The pun