Part 11
Chap. 40. [xxxv.] Why there is a record in Scripture of certain men's sins.
Recklessness in sins accounts it to be so much loss whenever it falls short in gratifying the instigation of lust.
The man who is endowed with a sound opinion does not say [what our author says,] " That the instances of certain persons, of whose sinning we read in Scripture, are recorded for this purpose, that they may discourage recklessness in sinning, nor seem in any way to afford to us security in commiting sin,"—but that we may learn the humility of repentance, or else discover that even in such falls salvation ought not to be despaired of. For there are some who, when they have fallen into sin, perish rather from the. recklessness of despair, and not only neglect the remedy of repentance, but become the slaves of lusts and wicked desires, so far as to run
268 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. XLIL all lengths in gratifying these depraved and abandoned dispositions,—as if it were a loss to them if they failed to accomplish what their lust impelled them to, whereas all the while there awaits them a certain condemnation. To oppose this morbid recklessness, which is only too full of danger and ruin, there is great force in the record of those sins into which even just and holy men have before now fallen.
Chap. 41.— Whether holy men have died without sin. Forgiveness of sins like a daily incense. No man can live, though he may die, without sin.
But there is clearly much acuteness in the question put by our author, " How must we suppose that those holy men quitted this life,—with sin, or without sin ? " For if we answer, " With sin," condemnation will be supposed to have been their destiny, which it is shocking to imagine ; but if it be said that they departed this life " without sin," then it would be a proof that man had been without sin in his present life, at all events, when death was approaching. But, with all his acuteness, he overlooks the circumstance that even righteous persons not without good reason offer up this prayer : " Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors ; " and that the Lord [Jesus] Christ, after explaining the prayer in His teaching, most truly added : " For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your [heavenly] Father will also forgive you your trespasses."
2 Here, indeed, we have the daily incense, so to speak, of the Spirit, which is offered to God on the altar of the heart, which we are bidden "to lift up [unto the
Lord,] "—implying that, even if we cannot live here without sin, we may yet die without sin, whilst the sin is blotted out in merciful forgiveness which is committed in ignorance or infirmity.
Chap. 42. [xxxvi.] The blessed Virgin Mary lived without sin. None of the saints besides her without sin. The praise of humility is not to be placed on the side offalsehood.
He then enumerates those " who not only lived without sin, but are described as having led holy lives,—Abel, Enoch,
Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua the son of Nun,
Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micaiah,
Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph
1 Matt. vi. 12. 2 Matt. vi. 14.
CHAP. XLIII.] THE SAINTS NOT WITHOUT SIN. 269 the names of some women,—" Deborah, Hannah the mother of the husband of the Virgin Mary, and John." And he adds
Samuel, Judith, Esther, the other Anna, daughter of Phanuel,
Elisabeth, and even the mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her," he says, " we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it." We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question, when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord ; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in ever) particular was conferred upon her who had the merit tc conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose w^ould be their answer ? Would it be in the language of our author, or in the words of the Apostle John ? I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice : " If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us ? 1 But perhaps in this their answer would have shown more of humility than of truth ! Well, but our author has already determined, and rightly determined, " not to place the praise of humility on the side of falsehood." If, therefore, they spoke the truth in giving such an answer, they would have sin, and since they humbly acknowledged it, the truth would be in them ; but if they lied in their answer, they would still have sin, because the truth would not be in them.
Chap. 43. [xxxvu.]
" But perhaps," says he, " they will ask me : Could not the Scripture have mentioned some sins belonging to all of them ? " And surely they would say the truth, whoever should put such a question to him ; and I do not discover that he has anywhere given a sound reply to them, although
I perceive that he was unwilling to let the question pass without an answer. What this is, I beg of you to observe
1 1 John i. 8.
270 ON NATURE AND GEACE. [CHAP. XLIV.
"This," says he, "might be rightly asked of those whom
Scripture mentions neither as good nor as bad ; but of those whose holiness it mentions, it would also no doubt have mentioned the sins likewise, if only it had known that they had sinned at all." He would say, forsooth, that their grand faith had no connection with holiness in the case of those who comprised " the multitudes that went before and that followed " the colt on which the Lord rode, when " they shouted and said, Hosanna to the Son of David : Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,"
1 even amidst the malignant men who with murmurs asked why they were doing all this ! Let him then boldly tell us, if he can, that there was not a man in all that vast crowd who had any sin at all. Now, if it is most absurd to make such a statement as this, why has not the Scripture mentioned any sins in the persons to whom reference has been made, especially when it has carefully recorded the eminent goodness of their faith ?
Chap. 44.
This, however, even he probably observed, and therefore he went on to say : " But, granted that it has sometimes abstained, in the instance of a numerous crowd, from narrating the sins of all that composed it ; still, in the very beginning of the world, when there were only four persons in existence, what reason (asks he) have we to give why it chose not to mention the sins of all [that small number ?] Was it in consideration of the vast multitude, which had not yet come into existence ? or because, having mentioned only the sins of those who had transgressed, it was unable to record any of him who had not yet committed sin ? " And then he proceeds to acid some words, in which he unfolds this
' fuller and more explicit illustration. " It is idea with a certain," says he, "that in the earliest age Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel their sons, are mentioned as being the only four persons then in being. Eve sinned,—the Scripture distinctly says so much; Adam also transgressed, as the same Scripture does not fail to inform us ; whilst it affords us an equally clear testimony that Cain also sinned : and of
1 Matt. xxi. 9.
CHAP. XLV.] FALSE INFERENCES FROM SCRIPTURE OMISSIONS. 271 all these it not only mentions the sins, but also indicates the character of their sins. Now if Abel had likewise sinned,
Scripture would no doubt have told us so. But it has given us no such information ; therefore he committed no sin, and not only so, but proved himself, and the Scripture
1 What we read, therefore, let us believe ; and what we do not read, moreover shows him, to have been a righteous man.
let us deem it impious to affirm."
Chap. 45. [xxxviii.]— Wlty Cain has been by some thought to have had children by his mother Eve. The sins of righteous men. Who can be both righteous, and yet not without sin. When he says this, he forgets what he had himself said not long before : "After the human race had multiplied, it was possible that in the crowd the Scripture may have neglected to notice the sins of all men." If indeed he had borne this well in mind, he would have seen that even in one man there was such a crowd and so vast a number of slight sins, that it would have been impossible (or, even if possible, improper) to describe them. Those only are recorded which required some method and consideration to be applied in their selection, that they might serve, in their limited number, as examples for instructing the reader in the many cases where he needed warning. Scripture has indeed omitted to mention concerning the few persons who were then in existence, either their numbers or their characters, in other words, how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve begat, and what names they gave them ; and from this circumstance some, not considering how many things are quietly passed over in Scripture, havegone so far as to suppose that Cain cohabited with his mother, and by her had the children which are mentioned, thinking that Adam's sons had no sisters, because Scripture failed to mention them in the particular place, although it afterwards, in the way of recapitulation, implied what it had previously omitted,—that
" Adam begat sons and daughters,"
3 without, however, dropping a syllable to intimate either their number or the time
1 [We have thus combined the two possible meanings of " quinetiam jw ostcnd'tt." See 1 John iii. 12.]
2 Quot vel qui fuerint. 3 Gen. v. 4.
272 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. XLV.
when they were bom. In like manner it was unnecessary to state whether Abel, notwithstanding that he is rightly styled "righteous/' ever indulged in immoderate laughter, or was ever jocose in moments of relaxation, or ever looked at an object with a covetous eye, or ever plucked fruit to extravagance, or ever suffered indigestion from too much eating, or ever in the midst of his prayers permitted his thoughts to wander, and call him away from the purpose of his devotion and [much more uncalled for still was it to state] how frequently these and many other similar failings stealthily crept over his mind. And are not these failings sins, about which the apostle's precept gives us a general admonition that we should avoid and restrain them, when he says : " Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof ? " 1 To escape from such an obedience, we have to struggle in a constant and daily conflict against unlawful and unseemly inclinations. Only let the eye be directed, or rather abandoned, to an object which it ought to avoid, and let the mischief strengthen and get the mastery, and adultery is consummated in the body, which is expedited in the heart only more quickly, as thought is more rapid than action, and there is no impediment to retard and delay it. They who in a great degree have curbed this sin, that is, this appetite of a vitiated affection, so as not to obey its desires, nor to " yield their members to it as instruments of
2 have fairly deserved to be called righteous unrighteousness," persons, and this by the help of the grace of God. Since, however, sin often stole over them in very small matters, and when they were off their guard, they were both righteous, and at the same time not sinless. To conclude, even if there were yet in righteous Abel that love of God, whereby alone the righteous man has true holiness, to enable him to advance in holiness and to lay him under a moral obligation to such progress, still, in whatever degree he fell short therein, it came from his own fault. And who indeed can help thus falling short, until he come to that mighty power thereof, in which man's entire infirmity shall be swallowed up ?
1 Rom. vi. 12. 2 Rom. vi. 13.
CHAP. XLYII.] ADHERENCE TO WHAT IS WEITTEN. 273
Chap. 46. [xxxix.]
It is, to be sure, a grand sentence with which he concluded this passage, when he says : " What we read, therefore, let us believe ; and what we do not read, let us deem it impious to affirm,—which it is sufficient to remark also of every case." On the contrary, I for my part say that we ought not to believe even everything that we read, [and this
I say] on the sanction of the apostle's advice : " Eead all
1 Nor is it an impious
things ; hold fast that which is good."
thing to affirm anything which we have not read ; for it is in our power to affirm anything which we have bond fide experienced as witnesses, even if it so happens that we have not read about it. Perhaps he will say in reply : " When I said this, I was treating of the Holy Scriptures." Oh how I wish that he were never willing to affirm, I will not say anything but what he reads in the Scriptures, but in opposition to what he reads in them ; that he would only faithfully and obediently hear that which is written there : " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned ; " 2 and that he would not weaken the grace of the great Physician, —all by his unwillingness to confess that human nature is vitiated ! Oh how I wish that he would, as a Christian, read the sentence, " There is none other name under heaven; 3 and that he would not so uphold the capability of human nature, as to given among men whereby we must be saved believe that man can possibly be saved by his own free will without that Name
Chap. 47. [xl.]—For what Pelagius thought that Christ is necessary to us.
Perhaps, however, he thinks the name of Christ to be necessary on this account, that by means of His gospel we may learn how we ought to live ; but not that we may be also assisted by His grace, in order withal to lead good lives.
Well, even this consideration should lead him at least to confess that there is a miserable darkness in the human mind, which knows how it ought to tame a lion, but knows not how to live. To know this, too, is it enough for us to
1 1 Thess. v. 21. 2 Rom. v. 12. 3 Acts iv. 12.
274 ON NATURE AND GEACE. [CHAP. XLVIII.
have a free will and the law of nature ? This is that wordwisdom, whereby "the cross of Christ is rendered of none
1 He, however, who said, "I will destroy the wisdom effect."
of the prudent," 2 since that cross cannot be made of none effect in very deed, overthrows the wisdom of the prudent by that foolishness of preaching whereby believers are healed
[of their sinful malady.] For if natural capacity, by help of free will, is in itself sufficient both for discovering how one ought to live, and also for leading a holy life, then " Christ
3 and therefore also " the offence of the cross died in vain,"
4 Why also may I not myself exclaim,—nay, I is ceased."
will exclaim, and chide them with a Christian's sorrow,
" Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you; 5 for, are justified by nature ; ye are fallen from grace
" being ignorant of God's righteousness, and wishing to establish your own righteousness, you have not submitted yourselves to the righteousness of God ? 6 For even as
" Christ is the end of the law," so likewise is He the
Saviour of man's corrupted nature, " for righteousness to every one that believeth." 7
Chap. 48. [xll]—How the term "all" is to be understood. His opponents adduced the passage, " All have sinned," and he met their statement founded on this with the remark that " the apostle was manifestly speaking of the then existing generation, that is, the Jews and the Gentiles ;" but surely the passage which I have quoted, " By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in that all have sinned," 9 embraces in its terms the generations both of old and of modern times, both ourselves and our posterity. He quotes, " As by the offence 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," 10 and thus remarks : " There can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism." Well,
1 1 Cor. i. 17. 2 1 Cor. i. 19. 3 Gal. ii; 21. 4 Gal. v. 11.
5 Gal. v. 4. 6 Rom. x. 3. * Rom. x. 4. 8 Rom. iii. 23.
8 Rom. v. 12. 10 Rom. v. 13.
CHAP. XLIX.] IS A STATE OF SINLESSNESS POSSIBLE ? 275 but he does not prove what he wants by this quotation. For as the clause, " By the offence of one, [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation/' is so worded that not one is omitted in its sense, so in the corresponding clause, "By the righteousness of one, [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life," there is a like fulness of meaning which omits none, not, indeed, because all men have faith and are washed in His baptism, but because no man is justified unless he believes in
Christ and is cleansed by His baptism. The term " all " is therefore used in a wav which shows that no one whatever can be supposed able to be saved by any other means than through Christ Himself. For if in a city there be appointed but one instructor, we are most correct in saying : That man teaches all in that place ; not meaning, indeed, that all who live in the city take lessons of him, but that no one is instructed unless taught by him. In like manner no one is justified unless Christ has justified him.
Chap. 49. [xlii.]—A man can be sinless, but only by the help of grace. In the saints this possibility advances and keeps pace with the realization.
" Well, be it so," says he, " I agree ; he testifies to the fact that all were sinners. He says, indeed, what they have been, not that they might not have been something else. Wherefore," he adds, " if all men could be proved to be sinners, it would not by any means prejudice our own definite position, in insisting not so much on what men are, as on what they are capable of being." He is right for once to allow that no man living is justified in God's sight. He contends, however, that this is not the question in the passage before us, but that the point lies in the possibility of a man's not sinning,—on which subject it is unnecessary even for ourselves to take ground against him ; for, in truth, I do not much care about expressing a definite opinion on the question, whether in the present life there ever have been, or now are, or ever can be, any persons who have had, or are having, or are to have, the love of God so perfectly as to admit of no addition to it (for nothing short of this amounts to a most true, plenary, and perfect righteousness). The point which I aver and maintain concerns the ability of man's will,—what it can do when
1 Compare De Peccatorum meritis et remissione, i. 55.
276 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. L.
assisted by the grace of God. As to the incidental questions of time and place, and the person who is to accomplish the doing, I am not bound to bestow any great pains in discussing them. Nor do I indeed contend about the actual possibility, forasmuch as the possibility under dispute advances with the realization in all holy persons, their human will being duly healed and helped [by divine grace;] whilst "the love of
God," as fully as our sound and cleansed nature can possibly receive it, " is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us."
1 In a better way, therefore, is God's cause promoted (and it is to its promotion that our author professes to apply his warm defence of nature) when He is acknowledged as our Saviour no less than as our Creator, than when His succour to us as Saviour is impaired and dwarfed to nothing by the defence of the creature, as if it were sound and its resources entire.
Chap. 50. [xliil]—God commands no impossibilities. What he says, however, is true enough, "that God is so good and just, that He made man of such a nature as to be quite able to live without the evil of sin, if indeed he had been only willing." For who does not know that man was made whole and faultless, and endowed with a free will and a power at liberty to lead a holy life ? Our present inquiry, however, is about the man whom " the thieves 2 left half dead on the road, and who, being disabled and pierced through with heavy wounds, is quite incapable of mounting up to the heights of holiness with the facility wherewith he was able to descend therefrom; who, moreover, is still in process of cure, even though he is already in " the inn."
3 God therefore does not enjoin impossibilities ; but in His injunctions He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do. Now, we should see whence comes the possibility, and whence the impossibility. He says : " That proceeds not from a man's will which he can do by nature." I say : A man is not righteous by his will if he can be by nature. He will, however, be able to accomplish
1 Rom. v. 5. 2 Luke x. 30. [Rather, "robbers;" latrones, XrnrruL]
3 Luke x. 34.
CHAP. LII.] FAITH IN CHRIST INDISPENSABLE. 277 by remedial aid what lie is rendered incapable of doing by the fault [of his nature.]
Chap. 51. [xliv.]—State of the question between the Pelagians and the Catholics.
. Holy men of old saved by the self-samefaith in Christ which ice exercise.
But why need we tarry longer on general statements ? Let us go into the core of the question, which we have to discuss with our opponents solely, or almost entirely, on one particular point. For inasmuch as he says that "as far as the present question is concerned, it is not pertinent to inquire whether there have been or now are any men in this life without sin, but whether there could ever have been or still could be such persons ;" so, were I even to allow that there have been or are any such, I should not by any means therefore affirm the past or , the present possibility [of any men being sinless,] unless justified by the grace of God through our Lord " Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
1 For the same faith which healed the saints of old now heals us, that is to say, faith " in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
2—faith in His blood, faith in His cross, faith in His death and resurrection. As we therefore have the same spirit of faith, we also believe, and on that account also speak.
Chap. 52.
Let us, however, observe what our author answers, after laying before himself the question wherein he seems indeed so intolerable to Christian hearts. He says : " But you will tell me this is what moves a great many,—the fact that you do not maintain that it is by the grace of God that a man can be without sin." Certainly this is what causes us disturbance ; tins is what we object to him. He touches the very gist of the case. This is what causes us such utter pain to endure it ; this is why we cannot bear to have such points debated by Christians, owing to the love which we feel towards others and towards themselves. Well, let us hear how he clears himself from the objectionable character of the question he has raised. " What blindness of ignorance," he exclaims,
" what sluggishness of an uninstructed mind, which supposes that that is maintained and held to be without God's grace
1 1 Cor. ii. 2. 2 1 Tim. ii. 5.
278 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. LIII.
which it merely hears ought to be attributed to God !" Now, if we knew nothing of what follows this outburst of his, and formed our opinion on simply hearing these words, we might suppose that we had been led to a wrong view of our opponents by the recklessness of report and by the asseveration of some competent witnesses among the brethren. For how could it have been more pointedly and truly stated that the possibility of men's not sinning, to whatever extent it exists or shall exist, ought only to be attributed to [the grace of] God ? This too is our own affirmation. "We may shake hands.
Chap. 53. [xlv.]
Well, must we listen to the rest of the sentence ? Yes, certainly ; both hear it, and of course correct it and guard asjainst it. These are his words : " Now, when it is said that the very possibility in dispute *is not at all within the competence of man's will, but of the Author of nature,—that is,
God,—how can that possibly be understood to be without the grace of God which is deemed to belong t© Him in so especial a manner ?" Here we begin to see what he means ; but that we may not lie under any mistake, he explains himself with greater breadth and clearness : " That this may become still plainer, we must," says he, " enter on a somewhat fuller discussion of the point. Now we affirm that the possibility of anything lies not so much in the power of a man's will as in the necessity of nature." He then proceeds to illustrate his meaning by examples and similes. "Take," says he, "for instance, my ability to speak. That I am able to speak is not my own ; but that I do speak is my own,—that is, it proceeds from my own will. And because the act of my speakingis my own, I have the power of resorting to either alternative, —that is to say, I am able either to speak or to refrain from speaking. But as my being able to speak is not my own,—in other words, does not proceed from my own will and pleasure, —this capability of speech at all times is a matter of neces-
1 [not of volition,] to me ; and if I wished to be unable to sity,
1 Necesse est me semper loqui posse. This obscure sentence seems to point to
Pelagius' former statement : Cujusque rei possibilitatem non tarn in arbitrii humani potestate quam in naturae necessitate consistere.
CHAP. LY.] NECESSITY, AND FEEEDOM OF WILL. 279 speak, I still have no power to secure such inability to myself, unless perhaps I were to deprive myself of that member whereby the function of speaking is to be performed." Many means, indeed, might be mentioned whereby, if he wish it, a man may deprive himself of the ability to speak, without removing the organ of speech. If, for instance, anything were to happen to a man to destroy his voice, he would be unable to speak, although the proper organ remained; for a man's voice is of course no organic part of his body. There may, in short, be an injury done to the organ internally, short of the actual loss of it. I am, however, unwilling to press the argument for a word ; and it may be replied to me in the contest, Why, even to injure [an organ of our body] is to lose the use of it. But yet we can so contrive matters, by closing and shutting the mouth with bandages, as to be quite unable to open it, and, [what is more,] to put the opening of it out of our power, although it was quite in our own competency to shut it while the strength and healthy exercise of the limbs remained.
Chap. 54. [xlvi.]— There is no incompatibility between necessity and the freedom of our will. Now how does all this apply to our subject ? Let us see what he makes out of it. " Whatever," says he, " is bound by natural necessity is deprived of all freedom of will and deliberate choice." Well, now, here lies a question ; for it is the height of absurdity for us to say that it is no concern of our will when we form a wish to be happy, on the ground that it is absolutely impossible for us to be unwilling to be happy, by reason of some indescribable but amiable coercion of our nature ; nor dare we maintain that God wills not to be holy, but is under the necessity of being so, because He cannot be willing to sin.
Chap. 55. [xlvil]
Mark also what follows. w We may perceive," says he, " the same thing to be true of hearing, smelling, and seeing,—that to hear, and to smell, and to see is our own, while the capacity to hear, and to smell, and to see is not our own, but lies in a natural necessity." Either I do not understand what he means, or he does not himself. For how is the capacity to see
280 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. LVI.
not in our own power, if the necessity of not seeing is in our own power ; because blindness is in oar own power, by which we can deprive ourselves, if we will, of this very capacity to see ? How, moreover, is it in our own power to see whenever we will, when, without any loss whatever to our natural structure of body in the organ of sight, we are unable, even though we wish, to see,—either by the removal of all external lights during the night, or by our being shut up in some dark place?
Likewise, if our capacity or our incapacity to hear is not in our own power, but lies in the necessity of nature, whereas our actual hearing or not hearing is within the competency of our own will, how comes it that he is inattentive to the fact that there are so many things which we hear against our will, which penetrate our sense even when our ears are stopped, as the creaking of a saw near to us, or the grunt of a pig ? Although the said stopping of our ears shows plainly enough that it does not lie within our own power not to hear with open ears ; perhaps, too, such a stopping of our ears as shall deprive us of the entire sense in question proves that even the ability not to hear lies within our own power. As to his remarks, again, concerning our sense of smell, does he not display no little carelessness when he says " that it is not in our own power to be able or to be unable to smell, but that it is in our own power "—that is to say, it lies within the competency of our own will—" to smell or not to smell ? " For let us suppose some one to place us, with our hands firmly tied, but yet without any injury to our olfactory organs, among some bad and noxious smells ; in such a case we altogether lose the power, however strong may be our wish not to smell, because every time we are obliged to draw breath, we also inhale the smell which we dislike.
Chap. 56. [xlviii.]— The assistance of grace in a perfect nature. Not only, then, are these similes employed by our author false, but the application also which he has made of them is equally incorrect. He goes on to say : " In like manner, touching the possibility of our not sinning, we must understand that it is ours not to sin, but yet that the ability to avoid sin is not ours." If he were speaking of man's whole and perfect nature, which we do not yet possess, * for we are
CHAP, lyil] god CANNOT SIN. 281 saved by hope : but hope that is seen is not hope : [for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for ?] But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it," his language even in that case would not be correct, to the effect that (however true it might be that it would be in our power to sin) to avoid sinning would be simply in our own control ; for even then there must be the help of God, which must shed itself on those who are willing to receive it, just as the light is given to strong and healthy eyes to assist them in their function of sight. Inasmuch, however, as it is about this present life of ours that he raises the question, wherein our corruptible body weighs down the soul, and our earthly tabernacle depresses our sense with all its many thoughts, I am astonished that he can with any heart suppose that, even without the help of our Saviour's healing balm, it is in our own power to avoid sin, and at the same time ascribe the capacity to do so to nature, which gives only stronger evidence of its own vitiated state by the very fact of its failing to see its taint.
Chap. 57. [xlix.]—It does not detract from God's almighty power, that He is incapable of either sinning, or dying, or destroying Himself.
" Inasmuch," says he, " as not to sin is ours, [it follows that] we are able to sin and to avoid sin." What, then, if another should say : Because it belongs to us not to wish for unhappiness, [it follows that] we are able both to wish for it and not to wish for it ; while yet we are positively unable to wish for it ? For who could possibly wish to be unhappy, even if he wishes for something else from which unhappiness would ensue to him even against his will ? Then again, since.
in an infinitely greater degree, it appertains to God not to sin, shall we therefore venture to say that He is able both to sia and to avoid sin ? God forbid that we should ever say that He is able to sin ! For He cannot, as foolish persons suppose therefore fail to be almighty, because He is unable to die, 01 because He cannot deny Himself. What, therefore, does he mean ? by what method of speech does he try to persuade us on a point which he is himself loth to consider ? For he advances a step further, and says : " Since indeed it does not appertain to us to be able to avoid sin, even if we were to wish
1 Bom. viii. 24, 25.
282 ON NATURE AND GEACE. [CHAP. LVIII.
not to be able to avoid sin, it is not in our power to be unable to avoid sin." It is an involved sentence, and therefore a very obscure one. It might, however, be more plainly expressed in some such way as this : Since to be able to avoid sin does not appertain to us, then, whether it be with our will or without our will, we are able to avoid sin ! He does not say, whether with our will or without our will, we do not sin,—for we undoubtedly do sin, if we will,—but yet he asserts that, whether we will or not, we have the capacity of not sinning,—a capacity which he declares to be inherent in our nature. Of a man, indeed, who has Ins legs strong and sound, it may be said
- the power or capacity of walking ; but if his legs be broken, he admissibly enough, that whether he will or not he has has not the capacity or ability, however much he may wish to walk. The nature of which our author speaks is vitiated. "Why is earth and ashes proud ? Ml It is vitiated, [I say.]
It implores the Physician's help. " Save me, Lord,"
2 is its
3 it exclaims. Why does he check such cry; "Heal my soul," cries so as to hinder future health, by insisting as it were on its present possibility ?
Chap. 58. [l.]—Even pious and God-fearing men resist grace.
Observe also what remark he adds, by which he thinks that his position is confirmed : " No effort of will," says he, " can take away that winch is proved to be inseparably implanted in nature." Whence then comes that utterance : " So then ye cannot do the things that ye would ? " 4 Whence also this :
" For what good I would, that I do not ; but what evil I hate, that do I ? 5 Where is that capability which is proved to be so inseparably implanted in nature ? See, it is human beings who do not what they will ; and it is about not sinning that he was treating, of course,—not about not flying, because it was men, not birds, that formed his subject. Behold, it is man who does not the good which he would, but does the evil which he hates : " to will is present with him, but how to perform that which is good he finds himself unable."
Where, [I ask again,] is the capability which is shown to be so inseparably inherent in nature ? It is certain that the
1 Ecclus. x. 9. 2 Ps. xii. 1. 3 Ps. xli. 4.
4 Gal. v. 17. 5 Rom. vii. 15. 6 Rom. vii. 18.
CHAP. LIX.] THE CAPACITY OF NOT SINNING. 283 apostle does not speak of his own mere self, but to his own person attributes a general character, man being the object thus assumed by him. By our author, however, it is maintained that our human nature actually possesses as an inseparable attribute the capacity of not sinning. Such a statement, however, even when made by a man who knows not the effect of his words (but this ignorance is hardly attributable to the man who suggests the propriety of such statements even for unwary, though God-fearing men), causes the grace of Christ to
1 when it is pretended that human be "made of none effect," nature is self-sufficient for its own holiness and justification.
Chap. 59. [ll]—In icJiat sense Pelagius attributed to God's grace the capacity of not sinning.
In order, however, to escape from the odium which arises in consequence of the jealousy wherewith Christians guard everything affecting their salvation, he parries their question when they ask him, " Why do you affirm that man without the help of God's grace is able to avoid sin ?" by saying, " The actual capability of not sinning lies not so much in the power of man's will as in the necessity of his nature. Now, whatever is placed in the necessity of nature undoubtedly appertains to the Author of that nature, that is, God. How then," says he,
" can that be regarded as done without the grace of God which is shown to belong in an especial manner to God ? " We have here expressed the opinion which all along was kept in the background ; there is, in fact, no way of permanently concealing such a doctrine. The reason why he attributes to the grace of God the capacity of not sinning is, that God is the Author of that nature in which he declares this capacity of avoiding sin to be inseparably inherent. Whenever He wills a thing, no doubt He does it ; and what He wills not, that He does not. Now, wherever there is this inseparable capability, there cannot accrue any infirmity of the will ; or rather, there cannot be both a readiness of the will and a failure in the
" performance." 2 This, then, being the case, how comes it to pass that " to will is present, where how to perform that
1 1 Cor. i. 17. Another reading has crux Christi instead of "Christi gratia," thus closely adopting the apostle's words.
2 Ttom. vii. 18.
284 ON NATURE AND GEACE. [CHAP. LX.
which is good" is absent ? Now, if the author of the work we are discussing spoke of that nature of man, which was in the beginning created faultless and perfect, in whatever sense his dictum be taken, " that it has an inseparable capacity," that is, so to say, a capability which cannot be lost,—then that nature ought not to have been mentioned at all which admitted of deterioration, and which could require a physician to restore sight to the blind, and that possibility of seeing which had been lost through blindness ;— for I suppose a blind man would like to see, but is unable. Now, whenever a man wishes to do a thing and cannot, there is present to him the will, but he has lost the capability.
Chap. 60. [lil]
See what obstacles he still attempts to break through, if possible, in order to introduce his own opinion. He raises a question for himself in these terms : " But you will tell me that, according to the apostle, the flesh is contrary * to us and then answers it in this wise : " How can it be that in the case of any baptized person the flesh is contrary to him, when according to the same apostle he is understood not to be in the flesh ? For he says, ' But ye are not in the flesh.'
3 whether it be really true
Very well; we shall soon see that [the apostle] says that in the baptized the flesh cannot be contrary to them ; at present, however, as it was impossible for him quite to forget that he was a Christian (although his reminiscence on the point is but slight), he has quitted his defence of nature. Where then is that inseparable capability of his ? Does he mean that those who are not yet baptized are not a part of human nature ? Well, now, here by all means, here at this point, he might find his opportunity of awaking out of his sleep ; and he still has it if he is careful. " How can it be," he asks, " that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him ?" Then [it seems] to the unbaptized the flesh is contrary. Let him tell us how, because even in the case of these the resources of nature have been stoutly maintained by him. However, in these he does allow that nature is vitiated, inasmuch as it was actually
1 Gal. v. 17. 2 Rom. viii. 9. 3 In the next chapter.
CHAP. LXL] IN WHOM IS THE FLESH CONTRARY? 285 among the already baptized that the wounded traveller left his inn sound and well, or rather remains sound in the inn whither the compassionate Samaritan carried him that he might become cured.
1 Well, now, if he allows the contrariousness of the flesh even in these, let him tell us what has happened to occasion this, since the flesh and the spirit alike are the work of one and the same Creator, and are therefore both of them good, because He is good. What indeed is it except the flaw which has been inflicted by man's own wilfulness ? And that this fault of our nature may be repaired, there is need of that very Saviour from whose creative hand nature itself proceeded. Now, if we acknowledge that this
Saviour, and that healing remedy of His which made the Word incarnate in order to dwell within us, are required by small and great,—by the crying infant and the hoaryheaded man alike,—then, in fact, the whole controversy of the point between us is settled at once and for ever.
Chap. 61. [mil] Now let us see whether we anywhere read about the flesh being contrary in the baptized also. And here, I ask, to whom did the apostle say, " The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh : and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would ?" 2
He wrote this, I apprehend, to the Galatians, to whom he also says, " He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith ?" 3 It appears, therefore, that it is to Christians that he speaks, to whom God had also given His Spirit : then it is to the baptized [that these words are addressed.] Observe, therefore, that even in baptized persons the flesh is found to be contrary ; so that they cannot have that capacity about which our author speaks as if it were inseparably inherent in our nature. Where then is the ground for his assertion, " How can it be that in the case of a baptized person the flesh is contrary to him ? " in whatever sense he understands the flesh ? Because in very deed it is not the nature of the flesh, which is good, [that is thought
1 Luke x. 34. * GaL v. 17. 3 GaL iii. 5.
286 ON NATURE AND GKACE. [CHAP. LXII.
of ;] but it is the carnal faults of the flesh which are expressly named in the passage before us.
1 Yet observe, even in the baptized, how contrary is the flesh. And in what way contrary ? " They do not the things which they would." Take notice that the will is present in a man ; but where is that capacity of nature [of which we hear so much ?] Let us confess that grace is necessary to us ; let us cry out, " O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" And let our answer be, [as his of old was,] "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!" 2
Chap. 62. Concerning ivhat grace of God the discussion is here concerned. The ungodly man, when dying, is not deliveredfrom concupiscence. Now, whereas there is the greatest correctness in those words of the question put to him, " Why do you affirm that man without the help of God's grace is able to avoid sin ?"
yet the inquiry did not concern that grace of God by which man was created, but only that whereby he is saved through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Faithful men say in their prayer,
" Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." 3
But if they already have [the boasted] capacity of avoiding the evil, why do they thus pray for it ? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from, but, above all else, " the body of this death ? " And from this only God's grace delivers them, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Not indeed from this bodily substance of us, which is very good ; but from its carnal lusts, whence a man is only liberated by the grace of the Saviour,—and not when he quits the body by the death thereof. If the apostle meant [only] to declare this, why had he previously said, " I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members ?" 4
Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man's nature ! He may be permitted to pray that he may^ be healed. But why does lie presume so strongly on the capability of his nature ? It is wounded, hurt, harassed, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defence of its capacity, that it stands in need of. It
1 See the context of Gal. v. 17, in versos 19-21.
2 Rom. vii. 24, 25. 3 Matt. vi. 13. 4 Rom. vii. 23.
CHAP. LXIII.] CONTEAEIES NOT NECESSARILY EEPUGNANT. 287 requires the grace of God, not that it may be made, but that it may be re-made. And this is the only grace which by our author is declared to be unnecessary ; and the more loudly so declared, because of the silence he keeps about it. If, indeed, he had said nothing at all about God's grace, and had not proposed to himself that question for solution, for the purpose of
1 it might removing from himself the odium of this matter, have been thought that his view of the subject was consistent with the truth, only that he had refrained from mentioning it, on the ground that not on all occasions must we say all we think. He proposed, [however,] the question of grace, and answered it in the way that suited him ; it has [therefore] assumed its distinctive form, not in the way we wished, but according to the doubt we entertained as to what was his meaning.
Chap. 63. [liv.] He next endeavours, by much quotation from the apostle, about which there is no controversy, to show " that the flesh is often mentioned by him in such a manner as proves him to mean not the substance, but the works of the flesh." What is this to the point ? The faults of the flesh are contrary to the will of man. His nature is not accused, but a Physician is wanted for its defects. What signifies his question, " Who made man's spirit?" and his own answer thereto, " God, without a doubt?" Again he asks, "Who created the flesh?" and again answers, "The same God, I suppose." And yet a third question,
" Is the God good who created both ? " and the third answer,
" Nobody doubts it." Once more a question, " Are not both good, since the good Creator made them?" and its answer, "It. must be confessed that they are." And then follows his conclusion : " Since, therefore, the spirit [of man] is good, and his flesh good, as made by the good Creator, how can it be that the two being good should be contrary to one another ?" I need not say that the whole of this reasoning would be upset if one were to ask him, "Who made heat and cold?" and he were to say in answer, " God, without a doubt." For my part, I decline asking a string of questions on the point. Let him determine himself whether these conditions of climate may
1 See above, ch. 59, sub init.
288 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. LXIV.
either be said to be not good, or else whether they do not seem to be contrary to each other. Here he will probably fi object, " These are not substances, but the qualities of substances." Very true, it is so. But still they are natural qualities, and undoubtedly belong to God's creation ; and substances, indeed, are not said to be contrary to each other in themselves, but in their qualities, as water and fire. What if it be so too with flesh and spirit ? We do not affirm it to be so ; but, in order to show that his argument terminates in a conclusion which does not necessarily follow, we have said so much as this : That it is quite possible for contraries not to be reciprocally opposed to each other, but rather by mutual action to temper health and render it good. Thus, in the case of our body, dryness and moisture, cold and heat, are substances in the tempering of which altogether consists our bodily health. The fact, however, that " the flesh is contrary to the Spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would," is a defect, not a natural state. The Physician's grace must be sought, and the controversy must end.
Chap. 64. Now, as touching these two good substances which the good God created, how, in the case of unbaptized persons, can it be true of them that they are contrary the one to the other, as this man's reasoning would make them to be ? Will he be sorry to have said this too, which he admitted out of some regard to the Christians' faith ? For when he asked,
" How, in the case of any person who is already baptized, could there be a contrariousness in his flesh?" he intimated, of course, that in the case of unbaptized persons it is possible for the flesh to be contrary. For why insert the clause,
" ivho is already baptized" when without such an addition he might have put his question thus : " How in the case of any person can the flesh be contrary ? " and when, in order to prove this, he might have subjoined that argument of his, that as both body and spirit are good (made as they are by the good Creator), they therefore cannot be contrary to each other ? Now, suppose unbaptized persons (in whom, at any rate, he holds the contrariousness of the flesh) were to ply him with
1 Gal. v. 17.
CHAP. LXV.] ABSUEDITY OF PELAGIUS' ARGUMENT. 289 his own arguments, and say to him, "Who made man's spirit ? he must answer, God. Suppose they asked him again, Who created the flesh ? and he answers, The same God, I apprehend. Suppose their third question to be, Is the God good who created both ? and his reply to be, Nobody doubts it.
Suppose once more they put to him his yet remaining inquiry, Are not both good, since the good Creator made them ? and his acknowledgment of that truth ;—then surely " they will hoist the engineer with his own petard," when they force home his conclusion on him, and say : Since therefore the spirit of man is good, and his flesh good, as made by the good Creator, how can it be that the two being good should be contrary to one another ? Here, perhaps, he will reply
I beg your pardon, I ought not to have said that the flesh cannot be contrary to the spirit in any baptized person, as if
I meant to imply that it is contrary in the unbaptized ; but
I ought to have made my statement general, to the effect that the flesh in no man's case is contrary. Now see into what a corner he drives himself. See what a man will say, who is unwilling to cry out with the apostle, " Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? I thank God, through
1 " But why," he asks " should I so
Jesus Christ our Lord."
exclaim, who am already baptized in Christ ? It is for them to cry out thus who have not yet received so great a benefit, whose words the apostle in a figure transferred to himseK, if indeed even they say so much." Well, so intense is this man's defence of nature, that it does not permit even these to utter this exclamation. For in the baptized, nature does not exist ; nor in the unbaptized is there nature. Or if even in the one class it is allowed to be vitiated, so that it is not without reason that men exclaim, " wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from this body of death ? " and to the other help is brought in what follows : " I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord," let it at last be granted that human nature stands in need of Christ for its Physician.
Chap. 65. [lv.]—" This body of death," so called from its defect, notfrom its substance. Now, I ask, when did our nature lose that liberty, which
1 Eom. vii. 24, 25.
290 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. LXV.
he craves to be given to him when he says : " Who shall deliver me ? " For even he finds no fault with the substance of the flesh when he expresses his desire to be liberated from the body of this death, for he affirms that the nature of the body, as well as of the soul, must be attributed to the good God as the author thereof. What he speaks of undoubtedly concerns the sins of the body. Now from our body the death of the body separates us ; whereas the vices contracted from the body remain, and their just punishment awaits them, as the rich man [in the parable] found to his cost in hell.
1 From these it was that he was unable to deliver himself, who said
" Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? 2 But whensoever it was that he lost the liberty in question, at least there remains that capability which is inseparable from nature. This power he has from the resources of nature, whilst the will comes to him through the freedom of his volition. [Then if this be so,] why does he require the sacrament of baptism ? Is it because of past sins, in order that they may be forgiven, since they cannot be undone ? Well, suppose you acquit and release a man on these terms, he must still utter the old cry ; for he not only wants to be mercifully let off from punishment for past offences, but to be strengthened and fortified against sinning for the time to come. For he " delights in the law of God, after the inward man ; but then he sees another law in his members, war-
3 Observe, he sees that
ring against the law of his mind."
there is, not recollects that there was. It is a present pressure, not a past memory. And he sees the other law not only " warring," but even " bringing him into captivity to the law of sin, which is " (not which was) " in his members." 4
Hence comes that cry of his : " wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? " 5 Let him pray, let him entreat for the help of the mighty Physician. Why gainsay that prayer ? Why cry down that entreaty ? Why shall the unhappy suitor be hindered from begging for the mercy of Christ,—and that too by Christians ? For, [alas !]
it was even they who were accompanying Christ that tried
1 Luke xvi. 23. t Rom. vii. 24. 3 Rom. vii. 22, 23.
4 Rom. vii. 23. 6 Rom. vii. 24.
CHAP. LXVII.] THE BAPTIZED HAVE INTERNAL CONFLICTS. 291 to prevent the blind man, by clamouring him down, from be<™in£ for licrht ; but even amidst the din and throng of the l whence the invariable gainsayers He hears the suppliant response : " I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Chap. 66. [lvi.] Now if we secure even this concession from them, that unbaptized persons implore the assistance of the Saviour's grace, this is indeed no slight point against that fallacious assertion of the self-sufficiency of nature and of the power of our free will [of which we hear so much.] For he has no self-sufficient resources who says, " wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me ? " Nor can he be said to have full liberty who still asks for deliverance. But let us, moreover, see to this point also, whether they who are baptized do the good which they would, without any resistance from the lust of the flesh. That, however, which we have to say on this subject, our author himself mentions, when concluding this topic he says : " As we remarked, the passage in which occur the
3 must needs have reference not to the substance, but to the works of the words, ' The flesh lusteth against the Spirit,' flesh." We too allege that this is spoken not of the substance of the flesh, but of its works, which proceed from carnal concupiscence,—-in a word, from sin, concerning which we have this precept : " Not to let it reign in our mortal body, that we
should obey it in the lusts thereof;
Chap. 67. [lvii.]— Who may he said to he under the law.
But even he should observe that it is to persons who have been already baptized that it was said : " The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, so that ye
5 And lest he should make them disinclined for the actual conflict through sloth, and should seem by this statement to have given them laxity cannot do the things that ye would."
in sinning, he goes on to tell them : " If ye be led of the
6 For that man is under
Spirit, ye are not under the law."
the law, who, from fear of the punishment which the law
1 Mark x. 46-52. 2 Rom. vii. 25. 3 Gal. v. 17.
4 Kom. vi. 12. 5 Gal. v. 17. 6 Gal. v. IS.
292 ON NATUEE AND GEACE. [CHAP. LXVIII.
threatens, and not from any love for holiness, obliges himself to avoid the work of sin, without being as yet free and removed from the desire of sinning. For it is in his very will that he is guilty, whereby he would prefer, if it were possible, that [the punishment] he dreads should not exist, in order that he might freely do what he secretly desires. Therefore he says, " If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law," —even the law which inspires fear, but gives not love. For this " love is shed abroad in our hearts," not by the letter of the law, but " by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us."
This is the law of liberty, not of bondage ; being the law of love, not of fear ; and concerning it the Apostle James says :
" Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty,"
2 etc. Whence he no longer indeed felt terrified by God's law as a slave, but delighted in it in the inward man, although still seeing another law in his members warring against the law of his mind. Accordingly he here says : " If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." So far, indeed, as any man is led by the Spirit, he is not under the law ; because, so far as he rejoices in the law of God, he lives not in fear of the law,
3 not joy and delight.
since " fear has torment,"
Chap. 68. [lviii.]
If, therefore, we feel rightly on this matter, it is our duty at once to be thankful for what is already healed within us, and to pray for such further healing as shall enable us to enjoy full liberty, in that most absolute state of health which is incapable of addition, the perfect pleasure at God's [right hand.] 4 For we do not deny that human nature may be without sin ; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the power of perfectibility, since we admit its capacity for progress, —by God's grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so. There is accordingly an easy refutation of the objection which our author says is alleged by some against him : " The devil is our adversary." This objection we also meet in entirely identical language with that which he uses in reply : " We must resist him, and he will flee. ' Eesist the devil,' says the blessed
1 Kom. v. 5. 2 Jas. i. 25. 3 1 John iv. 18. 4 Ps. xvi. 11.
CHAP. LXIX.] THE MEANS FOR AVOIDING SIX. 293 apostle, * and he will flee from you.' l From which it may be observed, what his harming amounts to against those whom he avoids ; or what power he is to be understood as possessing, when he prevails only against those who do not resist him." Such language is my own also ; for it is impossible to employ truer words. There is, however, this difference between us and his partisans, that we, whenever the devil has to be resisted, not only do not deny, but actually teach, that
God's help must be sought ; whereas they attribute so much power to the human will, as to exempt prayer from religious duty. Now it is certainly with a view to resisting the devil and his fleeing from us that we say when we pray, " Lead us not into temptation ; " 2 to the same end also are we warned by our Captain, exhorting us as soldiers in the words : " Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation."
Chap. 69. [lix.] In opposition, however, to those who ask, " And who would be unwilling to be without sin, if it were put in the power of a man ? " he discusses the question with perfect propriety, saying " that by this very question they acknowledge that the thing is not impossible ; because so much as this, many, if not all men, certainly desire." Well, then, let him only confess the means by which this is possible, and then our controversy is ended. Now the means is the actual grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; but nowhere has he been willing to allow that we are assisted at all by it in our payers for the avoidance of sin. If indeed he happens to have secret views different from his expressed opinion, he must forgive us if we suspect otherwise. For he himself does no less than this, who, though encountering so much obloquy on this subject, wishes to entertain the secret opinion, and yet is unwilling to confess or profess it. It would surely be no great matter were he to speak out, especially since he has undertaken to handle and open this point, as if it had been objected against him on the side of opponents. Why on such occasions did he choose only to defend nature, and assert that man was so created as to have it in his power not to sin if he had not
1 Jas. iv. 17. 2 Matt, vi. 13. 3 Mark xiv. 38.
294 ON NATURE AND GRACE. [CHAP. LXX.
wished to sin ; and, from the fact that he was so created, definitively say that the power was owing to God's grace which enabled him to avoid sin. if he was unwilling to commit it ; and yet, [after all these admissions,] refuse to say anything concerning the fact that even nature itself is either, because disordered, healed by God's grace through our Lord
Jesus Christ, or else assisted by it, because in itself it is so insufficient ?
Chap. 70. [lx.]— Whether any man is without sin in this life. Now, whether there ever has been, or is, or ever can be, a man living so righteous a life in this world as to have no sin at all, may be an open question among true and pious Chris-
1 but if any person doubts the possibility of this sinless tians j state after this 'present life, he is unwise. For my own part, indeed, I am unwilling to dispute the point even as respects this life. For although that passage seems to me to be incapable of bearing any doubtful sense, wherein it is written, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified"
2 (and so of similar passages), yet I can only wish it were possible to show either that such quotations were capable of bearing a better signification, or that a perfect and plenary righteousness, to which it were impossible for any accession to be made, had ever at any former time existed in any man whilst passing through this life in the flesh, or was now existing, or would hereafter come into existence. They, however, are in a great majority, who, while not doubting that to the last day of their life it will be needful to them to resort to the prayer which they can so truthfully utter, " Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,"
3 still trust that in
Christ and His promises they possess a true, certain, and unfailing hope. There is, however, no method whereby any persons arrive at absolute perfection, or whereby any man makes the slightest progress to true and godly righteousness, but the assisting grace of our crucified Saviour Christ, and the gift of His Spirit ; and whosoever shall deny this cannot rightly, I almost think, be reckoned in the number of any
Christians at all.
1 See next treatise—its preface, or Admonitio. 2 Ps. cxliii. 2. a Matt. vi. 12.