fince it depended upon the decree and good pleafure of God, whether they would persevere to the end or not*. In this refpect those who now maintain the doctrine of predestination differ very confiderably from Austin, maintaining that none are truly regenerated, except the elect, and that all these will certainly perfevere to the end, and be faved. In the church of Rome, however, and alfo in that of England, regeneration and baptifm are confounded, and the terms are used as expreffing the fame thing.

Auftin, whofe influence in the churches of Africa was uncontrouled, procured the opinions of his adverfary to be condemned in a fynod held at Carthage in 412; but they prevailed notwithftanding. The Pelagian doctrine was received with great applause even at Rome. There the conduct of the bishops of Africa, who had ftigmatized it as heretical, was condemned, and pope Zozimus was at the head of those who favoured Pelagius. Auftin's doctrine of predeftination, in particular, was not confirmed by any council within a century after his death, and though it was defended by the most celebrated divines in the West, it was never generally received in the Eaft, and was controverted by many in Gaul, and the favourers of it explained it.with more or less latitude. This controverfy, which began with

* Voffii Hiftoria Pelagianifmni, p. 565.

the

the doctrine of grace, and was extended to original fin and predeftination, rent the church into the most deplorable divifions in all fucceeding ages, and they have been continued, with little intermission, to the present time.

This controverfy was, however, almost wholly confined to the western church, while the Greeks continued in the ftate in which the christian church in general has been represented to have been before the Pelagian controversy; fuppofing that election, or predestination, was always made with a view to mens good works. Chryfoftom, as well as John of Jerufalem, continued to hold opinions very different from those of Austin, though these were very foon generally received in the western church; and just in the heat of this controversy, Caffian, a difciple of Chryfoftom, coming to Marseilles, taught a middle doctrine, which was, that "the first converfion of the foul "to God was the effect of its free choice," so that all preventing, as it was called, or predifpofing grace, was denied by him; and this came to be the diftinguishing doctrine of those who were afterwards called Semipelagians. Profper and Hilary, who were bishops in Gaul, gave an account of this doctrine to Auftin, but it was fo popular, that he did not venture to condemn it altogether, or to call it an impious and pernicious heresy *.

* Basnage, Histoire des Eglifes Reformeés, vol, i. p. 192. Moheim, vol. i. p. 427.

This controverfy also interested many perfons, and much was written on both fides of the question.

The peculiar opinion of the Semipelagians is expreffed in a different manner by different writers, but all the accounts fufficiently agree. Thus some represent them as maintaining that inward grace is not necessary to the first beginning of repentance, but only to our progress in virtue. Others fay that they acknowledged the power of grace, but faid that faith depends upon ourselves, and good works upon God; and it is agreed upon all hands, that thefe Semipelagians held that predestination is made upon the forefight of good works, which alfo continued to be the tenet of the Greek church.

The Semipelagian doctrine is acknowledged by all writers to have been well received in the monafteries of Gaul, and efpecially in the neighbourhood of Marseilles; owing in a great meato the popularity of Caffian, which counteracted the authority of Austin, and to the irreproachable lives of those who stood forth in defence of it. Profper writing to Austin about these Semipelagians, fays, "they furpafs us in the merit of their "lives, and are in high stations in the church*."

The affistance of Austin, though he was then far advanced in life, was called in to combat Sueur, A. D. 429.

these

thefe Semipelagians, and it was the occafion of his writing more treatises on these fubjects. In these he still strenuously maintained that the predestination of the elect was independent of any forefight of their good works, but was according to the good pleasure of God only, and that perseverance comes from God and not from man.

Notwithstanding the popularity of the Semipelagian doctrine, and its being patronized by fome perfons of confiderable rank and influence, the majority of fuch perfons must have been against it; for we find that it was generally condemned whenever any fynod was called upon the fubject. But there were fome exceptions. Thus one which was affembled at Arles, about A. D. 475, pronounced an anathema against those who denied that God would have all men to be faved, or that Chrift died for all, or that the heathens might have been faved by the law of nature*. Upon the whole, it cannot be faid that the doctrine of Austin was completely established for fome centuries; nor indeed was it ever generally avowed in all its proper confequences, and without any qualifications, till after the reformation, when the protestants espoused it, in oppofition to the popish doctrine of merit.

Voffius, p. 696. Bafnage, Hiftoire des Eglifes Reformées, vol. i. p. 699.

SECTION III.

Of the Dorine of Grace, &c. in the middle Ages, and till the Reformation.

It is pretty evident that, notwithstand

ing the great nominal authority of Austin, whom it was feldom reckoned fafe exprefsly to contradict, upon the whole the Semipelagian doctrine, may be faid to have been most prevalent in England and in France, efpecially during the 6th and 7th centuries. All the grace that was generally contended for in this period, was that which they fupposed to be imparted at baptifm, or a kind of fupernatural influence which did not fail to accompany or to follow mens own endeavours. Confequently, the operation of it in practice did not materially differ from that of Semipelagianifm itself. All the difference in fpeculation was that, whereas Pelagius fuppofed the power of man to do the will of God, was given him in his formation, and was therefore properly inherent in him, as much as his bodily ftrength, that which was afferted by his opponents in these ages was fomething foreign indeed to a man's felf, and imparted at another time, or occafionally, but still, in fact, at his command, and the doctrine of reprobation was never much relished.