boasting about the works of the law, when they were attracted by concupiscence to whatsoever was unlawful, though the law of which they boasted declared, "Thou shalt not covet," or indulge in concupiscence. Therefore, a man who is conquered, condemned and captivated, must humbly declare,-a man who, after having received the law, is not as [victori] one that lives according to the law, but is rather a transgressor of it, must humbly exclaim,-" O wretched man that I am," &c.-Ibid.

2. THAT man who will compare these passages from St. Augustine with my arguments concerning Romans vii, will perceive that we entirely agree together in sentiment, and that I subscribe to this opinion of St. Augustine. From these extracts it likewise appears, that nothing had at that period been prescribed by the Church concerning this portion of the Apostolical writings, but nothing towards that part especially,—that it was to be understood about a man who is regenerate and placed under grace.

But I am here met with this objection:-" St. Augustine, in "subsequent years, gave a different explanation to this chapter, "that is, as being applicable to a regenerate man placed under "grace; as he has done in the 43rd, 45th, and 47th of his Dis"courses On Time, and in several other passages.”—I confess that the fact was as it is here stated: And we will afterwards examine those passages; we shall then perceive how much they are able to contribute towards the establishment of the opinion that is opposed to mine.

"But," the same objectors say, "St. Augustine retracted and "condemned that very opinion which he had first explained in

his treatise, entitled, An Exposition of certain Propositions in "the Epistle to the Romans, and in his Book addressed to Sim"plicianus, Bishop of Milan: His authority, therefore, cannot "be adduced in confirmation of that opinion."

To this I might reply, FIRST, From the fact of St. Augustine having first entertained the same opinion about this passage as I do, and afterwards a different one, it is evident that neither of these opinions had been considered by the Church in the light of a catholic or universally-admitted doctrine.-SECONDLY. It is possible that St. Augustine may, in the beginning, have held a more correct opinion than that which he subsequently maintained; especially when in the first instance he followed his own judgment, which had been formed from an accurate inspection of the entire chapter, and from a diligent comparison of different sentiments on the subject: But he was afterwards influenced by the autho rity of certain interpreters of Holy Writ, as he informs us in his

Retractations, (lib. i, cap. 23,) though he adds, that he had with much diligence considered the subject: For he did not consider it without some of that prejudice which he had imbibed from the authority of those expositors.

66

3. BUT though I might make those preliminary replies, yet the answer which I will give is this:-St. Augustine never retracted or condemned that opinion by which he had explained this chapter as applicable to a man placed under the law; but he only retracted this part of his early opinion, "These words must not be received "as uttered in the person of the apostle himself, who was then spiritual, but in that of a man placed under the law and not yet "under grace." For he had made two assertions, FIRST, that this chapter must be understood as relating to a man placed under the law. SECONDLY, that it must neither be understood as relating to a man placed under grace, nor as relating to the apostle himself who was then spiritual. The former of these assertions was never retracted by St. Augustine; the latter he has retracted, as will most clearly appear to any one who will examine the passage, which it will be no trouble to transcribe on this occasion, since the Works of this Father are not in the hands of every one. In the first Book of his "Retractations," (cap. 23,) he says:

"While I was yet a Priest, it happened that the Epistle of the apostle to the Romans was read among us who were at that time together at Carthage, and my brethren made inquiries of me about some passages in it, to which when I had given as proper replies as I was able, it was the wish of my brethren that what I spoke on this subject should be written out, rather than be uttered [sine literis] in an extemporaneous manner: When on this point I had acceded to their request, another book was added to my Opuscula. In that book I say, But when the apostle asserts, For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin, he shews in a manner sufficiently plain, that it is 'impossible for the law to be fulfilled by any persons, except by those who are spiritual, and are made such by the grace of God.' This I wished not to be received in the person of the apostle, who was at that time spiritual, but in that of a man placed under the law, and who was not yet under grace. For that was the manner in which I first understood these words; which I afterwards considered with more diligence, after having perused the productions of certain [tractatoribus] commentators on the Divine Oracles, by whose authority I was moved; and I perceived that, when he says, For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin, the words may also be understood as

referring to the apostle himself. This I have shewn, with as much diligence as I was able, in those books which I have lately written against the Pelagians.

"In this book, therefore, I have said, that by the words, But I am carnal, sold under sin, through the remainder of the chapter to the verse in which he says, O wretched man that I am!, a man is described who is still under the law, but not yet placed under grace, who wills to do that which is good, but who, conquered by the desires of the flesh, does that which is evil. From the dominion of this concupiscence the man is not delivered, except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by the gift of the Holy Ghost, through whom love being diffused, or shed abroad, in our hearts, overcomes all the desires of the flesh, that we may not consent to those desires to do evil, but rather that we may do good. By this, indeed, is now overturned the Pelagian heresy, that will not admit that the love by which we live good and pious lives is from God to us, but that asserts it to be from ourselves.

"But in those books which we have published against the Pelagians, we have shewn, that the words of the apostle in Rom. vii, are better understood as those of a spiritual man who is now placed under grace,-on account of the body of flesh which is not yet spiritual, but which will be so in the resurrection of the dead, -and on account of carnal concupiscence itself, with which the saints maintain such a conflict, not consenting to it for evil, as not to be without its opposing motions in this life, which yet they resist. But the saints will not have such motions to evil in that world in which death will be swallowed up in victory. Therefore, on account of this concupiscence and those motions to which such a resistance is given as they may still be in us, for as suffers them yet to be in us,] every holy person who is now placed under grace can utter all those words which I have here said are the expressions of a man who is not yet placed under grace, but under the law. To shew this, would require much time; and it is spoken as soon as I have shewn it."-Ibid.

"Of the books which I wrote when a Bishop, the first two were addressed to Simplicianus, Bishop of the Church of Milan, who was successor to the blessed Ambrose; in them I discussed diverse questions. Two of the questions on which I treated in the first book, were from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The first of them was on what is written in vii, 7, What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid!, down to the 25th verse in which it is said, Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The

grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. In that book, I have expounded these words of the apostle, The law is spiritual, but I am carnal, and the other expressions by which the flesh is shewn to contend against the Spirit: In it I have explained them in such a manner as that in which a man is described who is still under the law, but not yet placed under grace. For a long time afterwards elapsed, before I discerned that they could also be the words of a spiritual man, and this with a stronger semblance of probability."—Retractations, lib. 2, cap. 1.

4. THESE are the passages transcribed with verbal accuracy, in which St. Augustine retracts the opinion which he had previously explained: From which it is apparent, that he neither rejected his former opinion, nor convicted it of falsehood, error or heresy; but that he only said, " This passage in the apostle's "writings may also be understood as referring to a man who is "regenerate, spiritual, and placed under grace, and this much "better and with more probability than concerning a man placed "under the law:" Yet he says that this [his first] opinion is opposed to the Pelagian heresy.-But the very words which he employs in his Retractations teach us, that this chapter in the apostolical writings may likewise be understood concerning a man who is placed under the law, but [according to his latest judgment] not so well, and with less probability.

We see, therefore, that the modesty of St. Augustine was at an immense distance from the vehemence of those who assert, that "this part of Holy Writ must be understood concerning a man who is placed under grace, nor can it by any means be explained as referring to a man placed under the law, without incurring the charge of Pelagian heresy."-Let the reader examine, if he pleases, the Works of St. Augustine, (tom. 10,) Concerning the words of the apostle, Sermon 5, on Rom. vii, 7, (fol. 59, col. 3,) "Speak to me, holy apostle, about thyself, when no one doubts that thou art speaking about thyself."

66

And in the same Sermon, (col. 4,) " If, therefore, I say, that the apostle speaks of himself, I do not affirm it."

But it is improper for this last, whether it be an explanation or a retractation of St. Augustine, to be urged by those who reject the cause of this change; by which, he openly declares, he was moved to suppose that this passage might likewise be explained in reference to a man under grace, and this much better and with greater probability: He says, that the cause of it was, because he perceived that this man might be called "carnal" on account of the body of flesh which is not yet spiritual, and because he has

yet within him the desires of the flesh, though he does not consent to them: This is also the opinion of those expounders whom St. Augustine says he followed.

But our divines who oppose themselves to me on Romans vii, do not explain that chapter in this manner, as,-to will that which is good, is to will not to lust or indulge in unlawful desires,—and to do evil, is to lust; but they explain it, actually to do or to commit that which is evil. The authority, therefore, of St. Augustine ought not to be produced by them; because, as we shall afterwards more clearly demonstrate, his judgment was this,—If this chapter be explained as referring to actual sins, it cannot be explained concerning a regenerate man: But if it be explained respecting a regenerate man, it must necessarily be understood only concerning the inward motions of concupiscence or lust.

Wherefore I have St. Augustine in his first opinion fully agreeing with me, and in his latter not differing greatly from me; but those who are opposed to me have St. Augustine contrary and adverse to them in both these his opinions.

IV. OUR OPINION IS SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL WRITERS OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

1. VENERABLE Bede.-2. St. Paulinus.-3. Nicholas De Lyra.—4. Ordinary Gloss-5. Interlineary Gloss.-6. Hugh the Cardinal.-7. Thomas Aquinas, who thinks that Romans vii, 14, may be explained in both ways, but he prefers its application to a regenerate Man.-8. He is of Opinion, that the 17th and 18th verses can only be considered by a forced Construction to relate to a man under Sin. His Reasons for advancing this last Assertion are examined and answered.—9. An Abbreviation of the Comments which Thomas has given on these two verses; with a Conclusion deduced from them, that they may be appropriately understood to relate to a man under the Law, but in no other than a forced manner to a man under Grace.

1.-VENERABLE BEDE.

FOR we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal.] Perhaps, therefore, it is some other person, or perhaps thyself. Either thou art the person, or I am: If, therefore, it be some one of us, let us listen to him as if concerning himself, and, divesting our minds of angry feelings, let us correct ourselves. But if it be he, [the apostle,] let us not thus understand what he has said, "What I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."-On Romans 7.