depends on the right use of our own powers,—that perfect obedience to the law is possible by men,-that grace changes only the understanding and not the will, and that salvation consists in leaving off sinning and embracing the doctrines of Christ, and this, with much more, man can do if he will.

It is plain that a system of doctrines such as these, must have originated in human reason alone, and not in revelation in any sense whatever. For it is so evidently opposed to direct scripture statement, and so contradictory to the declared design of the gospel, that no man who revered the Book of God as divine could ever have entertained such erroneous sentiments. Beyond all question, Pelagius formed his scheme from mere reason, and having put it into shape, he then twisted holy scripture to suit his pre-conceived notions. It is not possible to imagine that such a man went to scripture first as the light and guide of reason; but on the contrary, he made reason his great teacher, and then laboured to enlist the word of God into the service of that dangerous and defective guide. Among the manifold errors that have cursed the professing church, none have ever more flatly contradicted the word of God than those of Pelagius.

It was necessary to the support of such a mass of error, that scripture should be rendered as obscure as possible by a method of interpretation intended to hide or destroy its true meaning. Hence Pelagius gave no fewer than six interpretations to the word " grace." It was our whole nature but especially freewill, the promulgation of the law of God,-pardon,-the example of Christ,-internal change in our understanding, and sometimes baptism and final happiness. With Pelagius, grace was all these, but never electing, renewing, or sanctifying grace; never that free act of God's mercy which led the great apostle to exclaim, "By the grace of God, I am what I am!" It was, with the vain and superficial Pelagius the employment of human power according to the freewill of man, and in no sense an act of unmerited mercy on the part of God. Omnipotent man did the work, and God simply looked on and approved!

On a close examination of this system it will be found to resolve itself into the following main particulars:-1st. A denial of the total depravity of man. 2nd. A belief in the absolute freedom of the human will. 3rd. A dependence on works as the ground of salvation. And 4th. A practical rejection of divine grace as unnecessary. These, it will be evident are the leading errors of Pelagianism, others being subordinate and secondary; and to the consideration of these as the major principles of the system, the reader's attention will be briefly directed.

That the plain doctrine of Holy Scripture on the corruption of human nature is that of a total depravity cannot be questioned, without doing violence to every principle of honest interpretation. On what other ground can we accept the description of the awful wickedness of mankind before the Flood,-or the asserted and unquestioned deceitfulness of the human heart, -or the offering of Christ as a sacrifice for sin,—or the indispensable necessity of the new birth? And is not the testimony equally direct on the great doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his entire posterity? Can this be doubted by any impartial reader of Romans v. 12-21? The argument on this subject,

narrows to the single point of whether the apostle Paul or the rationalizing Pelagius is the more worthy of belief,-whether, in a word, we are to accept the teachings of direct inspiration, or listen to the unsupported opinions of a mere man, who nowhere gives proof of deep thought, or profound piety;-and in so grave a matter there can be, and there ought to be, but one conclusion, which is that where Scripture speaks let Pelagius and every other such man be forgotten.

Besides this, if the subject is viewed in the light of mere philosophy, there can be no other than total depravity if there be depravity at all. A partial depravity is an absurdity, since man must either be saint or sinner, holy or corrupt. The unity and simplicity of his moral nature reject the idea of anything partial in his spiritual being. He is in himself a totality, and can never be divided into separate parts; whatever therefore affects his spiritual character affects him wholly and totally. Hence human depravity must of necessity be complete; and if it appears less so in some individuals than in others, this is explained by the presence of restraining influences which hold in check the depravity that has made us all "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." It is very questionable whether, apart from such influences, there remains a stand point between God and Devil. Had not man been totally depraved there never could have been a cannibal upon earth. That hideous type of our common humanity proclaims to the universe the corruptibility of our nature when left to itself. As a consequence free-will, as taught by Pelagius, and a number of others, is an impossibility and a contradiction. An impossibility, because if the depravity be total it must of necessity include the will as a part of the depraved man; and a contradiction by assuming that the man is evil, but his will is good. According to this shallow theory the man may go one way, but the will another:-the one tending towards sin, but the other towards holiness;-the one inclining to evil, but the other inclining to good. And this "house divided against itself" is the man of Pelagianism, and in this particular, of its counterpart in Arminianism also. This system of contradictions, moreover, is held to be necessary to human responsibility, as if responsibility had to do with the will only and not with the whole man. Responsibility has to do with man, of whom the will is but a part; and the sinfulness of man, including that of his will, can never avail to release him from moral obligation. Whether upright or fallen, whether saint or sinner, man is amenable to his Maker; and the fact of his depravity can never make the slightest difference in his accountability to Him who is "over all, God blessed for ever." If therefore the freedom of the human will is demanded as a necessary condition of moral responsibility, it is granted at once, and without hesitation; but if, in consequence of this concession, or on any other ground, it is pleaded that this freewill can ever be enlisted on the side of God and goodness apart from the Holy Spirit's grace, this we utterly deny as opposed to Scripture statement in the first instance, and to sound philosophy in the next. The freedom of the will is necessary to responsibility; but the freedom of that will in depraved man, is a freedom for evil and not for good, and it is an unspeakable mercy that the infinitely wise and holy God, holds that most corrupt and wicked will in check. But for this merciful

interposition the depraved freewill of fallen man would make the world a Gehenna of death, a dwelling-place of fiends. Consequently, the first act of sovereign mercy towards the saved is to "make them willing in the day of his power;" and this most gracious process in the human heart confirms beyond all doubt or cavilling, the truth of the Redeemer's words, No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him."

Hence it follows that salvation is not and can never be, of works, as Pelagius asserted, but must be of grace, of pure free grace. As a "gift," to which none have claim, it is a sovereign act, and according to plan and purpose irrespective of merit in the creature, since none can exist in a creature wholly corrupt. Consequently, viewed in whatever light, Pelagianism is a delusion and a snare. Indulging in contradictions,―opposing holy Scripture with cool audacity and empty pride, imputing to fallen creatures a liberty which, if possessed, would be both dangerous and defiant,—and discarding the aid of divine grace, on the ground of prior ability without it; Pelagianism comes before us, as the offspring of pride and self-sufficiency, and the determined foe of that free grace in Christ, which gives to the believing sinner all his hope, and to the ever-blessed God all his glory, as the Saviour of his chosen people.

None, however, who study this system can question its seductive influence. It is gratifying to corrupt man to be told that he is free and not a slave; and in nothing is fidelity put to a severer test than in withholding this gratification from human pride. Even the Saviour's life was endangered by denying this freedom to the Jews in the bold and faithful assertion, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [doulos, slave] of sin." (John viii. 34) Pelagianism is, consequently, most congenial to our corrupt nature by flattering our pride, and contributing to our vanity. Proclaiming a freedom which, as sinners, we have forfeited, and a liberty which Divine grace alone can restore; its approaches resemble those of the character in the book of Proverbs (chap. vii.) of whom it is said, that, "she hath cast down many wounded; yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death."

W. S.

PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH.

No. 1.

2 CORINTHIANS xii. 7.

THE opinions of celebrated men who rank among sound divines, are very diverse on the subject of Paul's thorn in the flesh. In a second paper several of these opinions will be given with appropriate remarks. For the present, the following cautious letter is given. It was written by Mr. Stephens to H. Moore, on the 29th of December, 1814, and is none the less worthy of a careful perusal on account of age.

"St. Paul's infirmity was one well known in hot climates—a chronical ophthalmia. Hence he was what is called blear-eyed, and was often, perhaps, obliged to wear a shade. It made his personal presence mean; it was a visible infirmity in his flesh; it hindered his usefulness, and therefore he besought the Lord anxiously that it might depart from him, but was answered, 'My grace is sufficient for thee.' It made it, for the most part, painful and difficult for him to write. Hence he generally employed an amanuensis, and regarded it as a great matter when he used his own pen. 'You see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand.' 'The salutation of me, Paul, written with my own hand.' It is thought that he might abstain from writing to save his strength or time;-why then did he work at tentmaking? A man who maintained himself by that sedentary labour might as well have been at his desk, for we cannot suppose that the wages of a journeyman tent-maker were greater than those of an amanuensis. It exposed him to contempt and derision among strangers, and therefore he gives praise to the Galatians, that when he preached the Gospel to them at the first, through infirmity of the flesh, his temptation which was in 'his flesh, they despised not.' That the infirmity was of a bodily kind, seems quite indisputable. Doddridge, and all the best. commentators take that side. It is literally so described; and the calling it a messenger of Satan' is perfectly consistent with its being a bodily disease. Satan, in fifty places, is represented as the immediate author of corporal defects and maladies. The passages cited show it was something visible to others. How could a temptation to a particular sin be so, unless it was complied with? It would be derogatory to the character of the Apostle, and even of an antinomian tendency, to suppose this to have been the case. The Galatians ought to have despised him, if, in preaching the Gospel, he had exhibited before them the strength of a temptation by the commission of open sin. They would have deserved no praise for not despising, but the reverse; i.e. for not despising the temptation, if put for the visible sin, which was its evidence. In short, I am astonished how any pious and judicious commentator should think this thorn in the flesh' a thorn in the conscience. If it was bodily, it was also some bodily infirmity of an unsightly appearance, making his 'person' or aspect' mean,' and exposing him to contempt. How shall we find a more probable hypothesis to suit those and the other preconceptions? He was not lame,—witness his great bodily activity.

"Doddridge suppposes that the view he had of celestial glories might have affected his nervous system so as to occasion stammering in his speech, or some ridiculous distortion in his countenance. (Exposition. 2 Corinthians xii. 7) But it is at least equally probable that those heavenly visions, or the supernatural light which blinded him at his conversion, might have left a weakness and disease in the organs immediately affected. It is notorious that after a severe inflammation in the eyes, they are extremely liable, for a long time, or through life, to a return of the complaint. It may be even presumed from analogy, that unless the miracle which restored Paul to sight, removed also a natural secondary effect of the temporary injury the organs had received, there must have been a predisposition afterwards

to the complaint which I suppose him to have had. Now that frugality in the use of means, which has been observed even in the miraculous works of God, may be supposed to have permitted that predisposition to remain, it being designed that the Apostle, for his humiliation and the exercise of his faith and patience, should have a permanent infirmity of the flesh to struggle with in future life.

"The choice of the metaphor by which St. Paul describes his infirmity also weighs much with me; indeed it first excited my conjecture. The pain of ophthalmia, when severe, exactly resembles the prick of a thorn or pin. I once had it severely indeed in the West Indies. It made me blind, in a manner, for about three weeks, and during that time if a ray of light by any means broke into my darkened chamber, it was like a thorn or pin run into my eye, and so I often described it. I felt also the subsequent effect for years, which I supposed to have been experienced by St. Paul; a predisposition to inflammation in the eyes, which extreme care and timely applications prevented from recurring. I see a further possible source of this idea in his mind, in the fact that thorns in the eyes are figuratively used in different parts of the Scripture, to signify troubles and temptations. (See Numbers xxxiii. 55, and Joshua xxiii. 13) Now if this metaphor had an affinity with the actual bodily sensations of the Apostle, it was natural he should think of and use it, but as natural that he should vary it into the more general term flesh, that he might not confound the proper with the metaphorical sense, and be understood to mean that a thorn actually thrust into his eye had produced the disease.

"This may be thought, perhaps, too refined; but the strongest argument of all remains, and appears to me nearly, if not quite, decisive: it rests upon Galatians iv. 15. After praising them in the preceding verse, for not despising his fleshly infirmity (whatever that was), he here subjoins, I bear you record, that if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.' How natural this context on my hypothesis! How little so on any other! Was it a moral infirmity, a temptation shown by its fruits? It might, then, have pardon; it might have charitable and respectful indulgence, in consideration of the great and good qualities which were seen in the same character; but it could not give rise to such glowing affection, such ardour of sympathetic kindness, as these words import. Again, was it a bodily infirmity affecting some other member than the eye; how extremely unnatural this expression of the sympathy which it produced. Let us take, for instance, Doddridge's conjecture. saw my paralytic distortions in my mouth and cheeks, you heard my stammering tongue, when I first preached the Gospel to you; but you despised not those infirmities. On the contrary, you would, if it had been possible, have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me.' Suppose lameness, or some sharp internal disease, (as others have supposed, notwithstanding the visible character of the infirmity,) and the incongruity is not much, if at all, less. But if the Apostle was speaking of his diseased eyes, which made his aspect unsightly, and prevented, perhaps, much of the natural effect of his preaching, to which they, nevertheless, respectfully listened, and with affectionate sympathy did all they could for his comfort and relief,-how natural,

You