the friends of evangelical truth will see, that in addition to their own convictions of truth, they have the example of primitive times. Here the orthodox believer will see, that while Heresy has ever been in a state of fluctuation, the voice of a majority, in the purest times, from the Apostles days, has been in favor of the doctrines of Grace, until the Church became.corrupted by an unnatural alliance with~ the civil authority.

When the Arian doctrine first appeared, it is manifest that it excited a deep concern in the minds of Christians. Their conduct, in` regard to this doctrine, is a proof that they at least deemed it a Heresy of pernicious tendency; and that if it were suffered to spread, it would corrupt the Church, and counteract the moral tendency of the Gospel. On no other principle can we justify, or even account for, the part which they acted. This proof does not arise from those contentions between the Arians and the orthodox, which agitated the Church after the death of Constantine. These became conflicts between the rival Emperors, rather than between truth and error. The proof arises from the decision of the Bishops and Ecclésiastics, who were assembled at the -council of Nice. That council was the most general assembly of Ecelesiastics that had ever been convened. They doubtless considered themselves as the representatives, and their decisions as the voice, of the Christian world.

We may, with propriety, consider the result of their deliberations as an expression of the general opinion.

Those who have thought favorably of the Arian scheme of doctrine, acknowledge, that the principal object of this council was to decide respecting the doctrines of Arius, which were then new.

It is a fact, that these doctrines were condemned; and that Arius, with those who adhered to him, were excommunicated.

It appears furthermore, that the members of that numerous assembly were almost unanimous in the sentence upon Arius and his followers. The conclusion, that they considered this doctrine to be a Heresy, is plain and unavoidable.

The fathers, who composed that council, declare their belief, that the Son of God, who is equal, or consubstantial, with the Father, came down, became incarnate, and suffered for our salvation. In addition to their belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ, they also declare it as their belief, that his sufferings were necessary for salvation; or that men are saved by the efficacy of his atonement; therefore they are saved by Grace.

Their conduct, respecting Arius, is manifest proof, that they considered his doctrine to be essentially different from that which they express in their creed.

Of the Pelagian doctrine:

THE Church had not yet enjoyed a res

pite, from those contentions which the doctrinés of the Arians had excited, when another sect arose, which has divided the Christian world from the fifth century to this time. If credit be due to the testimony of Mosheim, doctrines were advanced in the fifth century, which, at that time, were new, and different from those which had been the faith of the Church. Pelagius, and Cælestus, two monks, the former of Britain, and the other of Ireland, first originated those sentiments. The followers of these, have been called Pelagians.

We must suppose, that a historian of such credibility as Mosheim, would not hazard assertions on slight grounds; and therefore we may depend upon the correctness of the account which he has given of this sect. His account is this: "These monks looked upon the doctrines which were commonly received concerning the original corruption of human nature, and the necessity of divine grace to enlighten the understanding and purify the heart, as

prejudicial to the progress of holiness and virtue, and tending to lull mankind into a presumptuous and fatal security. They maintained, "that these doctrines were as false as they were pernicious: that the sins of our first parents were imputed to them alone, and not to their posterity: that we derive no corruption from the fall, but are born as pure and unspotted as Adam came out of the forming hand of his Creator: that mankind are therefore сараble of repentance and amendment, and of arriving at the highest degrees of piety and virtues by the use of their natural faculties and powers: that indeed external grace is necessáty to excite their endeavors, but that they have no need of the internal succors of the divine Spirit."*

Dr. Maclaine, the translator of Mosheim, adds to the foregoing account as follows: "The doctrines, which were more immediate--ly connected with the main principles of Pela--gius, were, that infant baptism was not a sign or seal of the remission of sins; but a mark of admission into the kingdom of Heaven, which was only open to the pure in heart: that good works were meritorious, and the only conditions of salvation.

P

It is intimated, that some of the Pelagian sect denied the divinity of Christ. Perhaps these were as consistent as those who believed him to be God as well as man. The Pelagian

Century 5.

doctrine may be considered as the counterpart or continuation of the Unitarian. It is the Unitarian scheme, carried into its consequences. It is the effect which that doctrine will have upon the system of religious truth. We have remarked, that if Jesus Christ were but a creature, he was not a competent person to make atonement. The natural conclusion from hence is, that an atonement was not necessary; of course there is no Grace mani fested in the salvation of men: It must be the fruit and reward of their own virtue and obe dience. These consequences are precisely the doctrines which distinguished the Pelagian system from those opinions which had prevailed in the Church until they appeared. If mankind came into the world, with as great inclination to holiness as to sin; if they are independently capable of amendment; and especially if good works, by which is doubtless intended such works as creatures can perform, are meritorious, and the only condition of salvation; there was no need of a divine Savior. It might be useful, on this plan of doctrine, that an inspired Prophet should be sent into the world, to instruct mankind, and excite them to that virtue which is the only condition of salvation; but there was nothing for him to do as a Savior.

To little purpose is a Savior provided, who is able to bring in everlasting righteousness, and save to the uttermost; in a word, it would be of no avail to mankind, that an atonement has been made, so long as it cannot be a con-