counteracted the authority of Austin, and to the irreproachable lives of those who stood forth in defence of it. Prosper, writing to Austin about these SemiPelagians, says, "they surpass us in the merit of their lives," and are in high stations in the church.1 The assistance of Austin, though he was then far advanced in life, was called in to combat these Semi-Pelagians, and it was the occasion of his writing more treatises on these subjects. In these he still strenuously maintained, that the predestination of the elect was independent of any foresight 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 Semi-Pelagian doctrine, and its being patronized by some persons of considerable rank and influence, the majority of such persons must have been against it; for we find that it was generally condemned whenever any synod was called upon the subject. But there were some exceptions. Thus one which was assembled at Aries, about A.d. 475, pronounced an anathema against those who denied that God would have all men to be saved, or that Christ died for all, or that the Heathens might have been saved by the law of nature.2 Upon the whole, it cannot be said that the doctrine of Austin was completely established for some centuries; nor indeed was it ever generally avowed in all its proper consequences, and without any qualifications, till after the Reformation, when the Protestants espoused it, in opposition to the Popish doctrine of merit. tin, whom it was seldom reckoned safe expressly to contradict upon the whole, the Semi-Pelagian doctrine may be said to have been most prevalent in England andin France, especially during the sixth and seventh centuries. All the grace that was generally contended for in this period, was that which they supposed to be imparted at baptism, or a kind of supernatural influence which did not fail to accompany or to follow men's own endeavours. Consequently, the operation of it in practice did not materially differ from that of SemiPelagianism itself. All the difference in speculation was, that, whereas Pelagius supposed 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 strength, that which was asserted by his opponents in these ages was something foreign indeed to a man's self, and imparted at another time, or occasionally, but still, in fact, at his command, and the doctrine of reprobation was never much relished. In a council held at Orange, in 520, against the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, it was determined, that "all those who have been baptized, and have received grace by baptism, can and ought to accomplish the things which belong to their salvation; Jesus Christ enabling them...provided tbey will labour faithfully." And not only do the fathers assembled upon this occasion profess not to believe that there are men destined to evil or sin by the will of God, but they say that, "if there be any who will believe so great an evil, they denounce [a hundred] anathemas upon them with all detestation."3 In this state things continued, the Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian doctrine being generally received, till about the middle of the ninth century. For, notwithstanding the credit of Austin's name, and the authority of his writings, yet no books were more generally read in those ag33 than Cassian's Col 3 Sucur, A.D. 529. (P.) See [Rutt's Priestley] Vol. III. p. 583. Note t. lections, which was thought to be the best book of institutions tor a monk to form his mind upon, and which gave a strong impression in favour of the doctrine of the Greek church. This was very apparent in the ninth entury, when Godeschalchus was sevGijly reproved by Hincmar for asserting some of Austin's doctrines, and laying particular stress upon them. This Godeschalchus was a monk of Orbais, in the diocese of Rheims, who, being fond of Austin's doctrines, carried them rather farther than Austin himself had done; teaching, among other things, that baptism did not save men, that God had predestinated the greatest part of mankind to damnation, and that none would be saved but the elect, for whom only Christ had shed his blood. In this he was opposed by Rabanus Maurus; and a council being held on the subject, at Mayence, and also at Creci, he was condemned, and at length died in prison. Remi, archbishop of Lyons, wrote in his favour, and maintained that Godeschalchus had not said that God predestinated the reprobate to sin and wickedness, but only that he abandoned them to their own free-will, to be punished because they would not believe: and in a council held at Valence in Dauphiny, in which Remi himself presided, the decrees of the former council were annulled. But still the members of this council founded the doctrine of divine decrees on God's prescience that the wicked would destroy themselves. We find no other decisions of any synod or council after this, and different opinions continued to be held on the subject.1 When we come to the age of the proper schoolmen, it is somewhat difficult, notwithstanding they write professedly and at large on all these subjects, to state their opinions with precision, as they seem to confound themselves and their readers with such nice distinctions. In general, Austin 1 Vossii Historia Pelagianismi, p. 784. (P.) being the oracle of the schools, his doctrine was professed by them all, even by the Franciscans, as well as the Dominicans. They only pretended to dispute about the true sense of his writings. His general doctrine with respect to grace and predestination was so well established, that we only find some subtle distinctions upon the subject, and some evasions of his doctrine by those who did not altogether relish it. It was agreed among the theologians of this age, that infants are properly chargeable with the sin of Adam, and liable to damnation on that account, because the will of Adam was in some sort the will of the infant. Thomas Aquinas endeavours to prove that it was only the first sin of Adam that could be transferred to his posterity, and that vitiated all his offspring, his subsequent offences affecting himself only. He farther maintains that original sin, being communicated in the act of generation, a person born miraculously cannot have it.2 According to some of the schoolmen, the power of man was but inconsiderable, even before the fall. Peter Lombard says, that "by the grace of God given to man, he could resist evil, but could not do good. Free choice," he says, "is the faculty of reason and will, by which, with the help of grace, we can choose good, or without it, evil." 993 "Thomas Aquinas—not only asserted all St. Austin's doctrine (especially that of predestination), but added this to it, that, whereas formerly it was, in general, held that the providence of God did extend to all things whatsoever, he thought this was done by God's concurring immediately to the production of every thought, action, motion or mode." And, not to make "God the author of sin, a distinction was made between the positive act of sin, which was said not to be evil, and the want of its conformity to s Summa, II. pp. 166, 168. (P.) Bentontiæ, L. ii. Dist. iv. pp. 801, S92. (P.) the law of God, which, being a negation, was no positive being."1 There is no small difficulty in settling the opinion of Thomas Aquinas about grace, though he writes so largely on the subject. He says, that a man cannot even prepare himself for the grace of God without prior grace. Yet he says, in general, that a man must prepare himself for receiving grace, and that then the infusion of grace necessarily follows. He also says, that a man's free will is necessary to receive the grace by which he is justified. And yet he says, that it cannot be known to any person, except by revelation, whether he has grace.2 No modern fanatic can say anything more favourable to the doctrine of instantaneous conversion than this writer does. "The justification of a sinner," he says, "is in an instant;" and, again, that "it is the greatest work of God, and altogether miraculous."3 The manner in which this writer and other catholics make room for the doctrine of merit, together with these high notions concerning grace, which they never professedly abandoned, is not a little curious. "A man may merit of God," says Thomas Aquinas, "not absolutely, indeed, but as receiving a reward for doing that which God enables him to do." Yet he still acknowledges, that a man cannot merit the first grace, either for himself or for another, and that Christ alone can do this.4 If Thomas Aquinas could find room for the doctrine of merit in his system, which was professedly built on that of Austin, it may well be presumed, that the disciples of Duns Scotus (the head tion and asserted the freedom of the will," and that Durandus denied that immediate concourse of God with the human will, which had been asserted by Aquinas, but that in this "he has not had many followers, except Adola and some few others."5 At length, the members of the Church of Rome not only attained to a firm persuasion concerning the doctrine of merit, notwithstanding the slender ground on which it was built, but imagined that not only Christ, but also some men, and especially martyrs, and those who lived a life of great austerity, had even more merit than themselves had occasion for; so that there remained some good works in the balance of their account more than they wanted for their own justification. These they termed works of supererogation, and imagined that they might be transferred to the account of other persons. The whole accumulated stock of this merit was called the treasure of the church, and was thought to be at the disposal of the Popes. Clement VI., in his bull for the celebration of the jubilee in 1350, speaks of this treasure as composed of "the blood of Christ, the virtue of which is infinite, of the merit of the virgin mother of God, and of all the saints."6 This doctrine was the foundation for those indulgences, of which an account will be given in another place, and the monstrous abuse of which brought about the Reformation by Luther. SECTION IV of the Franciscan order, as Aquinas OF THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE, ORIGINAL was the chief of the Dominicans), and who opposed the doctrine of Aquinas as much as he could, were not less favourable to the doctrine of merit. Burnet says, that "Scotus, who was a Franciscan, denied the pre-determina1 Burnet on the Articles, p. 194. (P.) Art. xvii. Ed. 4. p. 147. 2 Summa, II. pp. 243-252. (P.) 3 Ibid. pp. 254, 255. (P.). Ibid. II. pp. 257, 258. (P.) SIN, AND PREDESTINATION, SINCE THE As good generally comes out of evil, « Exposition, p. 194. (P.) Art. xvii. p. 147. 6 Memoires pour la Vie de Petrarch, III. p. 75. (P.) the reformation by Luther. For the zeal of this great man against the doctrine of indulgences, and that of merit, as the foundation of it, unhappily led him and others so far into the opposite extreme, that from his time the doctrines of grace, original sin, and predestination, have been generally termed the doctrines of the Reformation, and everything that does not agree with them has been termed popish, and branded with other opprobrious epithets. abuse of that of the doctrine of merit in the Church of Rome, he had himself been, as was observed before, a monk of the order of Austin, and had always been a great admirer of his writings. Also most of those of the Church of Rome who first opposed him were of a different persuasion; the doctrines of Austin having been either abandoned, or nearly explained away, by the generality of the divines of that age. Upon the whole, therefore, it was not to be expected, that such a person as Luther was, should begin a reformation upon any more liberal principles. The fact, however, is notorious. 66 These doctrines, I observed, originated with Austin, and though they never made much progress in the Greek church, they infected almost all the 'Luther," says the translator of Latin churches. We see plain traces Mosheim, "carried the doctrine of jusof them among the Waldenses, who tification by faith to such an excessive were the earliest reformers from Popery. length, as seemed, though perhaps For, in the Confession of their Faith contrary to his intention, to derogate bearing the date of 1120, they say, not only from the necessity of good "We are sinners in Adam and by works, but even from their obligation Adam," and in another Confession, and importance. He would not allow dated 1532, they say, that "all who them to be considered either as the are or shall be saved, God has elected conditions or means of salvation, nor from the doundation of the world; and even as a preparation for receiving it." that whoever maintains free-will, de- He adds, that "the doctrines of absonies predestination, and the grace of lute predestination, irresistible grace, God."1 Wickliffe also "asserted the and human impotence, were never necessity of being assisted by divine carried to a more excessive length........ grace. Without this, he saw not how by any divine than they were by Lua human being could make himself ther." Amsdorf, a Lutheran divine, acceptable to God."2 maintained, Mosheim says, that good works were an impediment to salvation." Flacius, another Lutheran, held, that original sin was not an accident, but of " 'the very substance of human nature."4 But if we were sufficiently acquainted with all the opinions of the Waldenses, and other early reformers, we might, perhaps, meet with many things that would qualify the seeming rigor of these articles. It is certain, however, that neither among *he ancient reformers, nor among the Dominicans, or any others who leaned the most to the doctrine of Austin in the Church of Rome, was the scheme so connected in all its parts, and rendered so systematical and uniform, as it was by Luther and the reformers who followed him. Besides that Luther was led to lay the stress that he did upon the doctrine of grace, in consequence of the 1 Leger, Histoire, pp. 87, 95. (P.) 5 66 In some of the first Confessions of Faith published by the Lutherans, and others of the first reformers, the doctrines of grace, original sin, and predestination, are laid down with remarkable rigour, and a studied exactness of expression. The Augustan Confession says, "On the account of Adam's sin we ore liable to the wrath of God, and eternal death, and the corruption of human nature is propagated Eccl. Hist. IV. pp. 30 Note [q], 40 Note [b]_ (P.) Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Pt. ii. xvii. xxx. Aota. 4 Ibid. pp. 30, 4S. (P.) Ibid. xxix. xxxiii, Ibid. p. 40. Note [b]. from him. This vice of our origin free-will; and Melancthon, the great (vitium originis) is truly a damning friend of Luther, and the support of sin, and causing eternal death to all who are not born again by baptism and the spirit." We find, however, some expressions rather stronger than even these in the Gallic Confession: "We believe that this vice," {vitium,) meaning original sin, "is truly a sin, which makes all and every man, not even excepting infants in the womb, liable, in the sight of God, to eternal death."" any doctrine can make a man shudder, it must be this. Believing this, could any man (unless he had a firmer persuasion than most men can, by the force of any imagination, attain to, of himself being among the number of the elect) bless God that he is a descendant of Adam? If Calvin held these doctrines with no less rigour; and as the Lutherans afterwards abandoned them, they are now generally known by the name of Calvinistic doctrines. As to "the most ancient Helvetic Doctors," says Mosheim, "their sentiments seemed to differ but very little from those of the Pelagians; nor did they hesitate in declaring, after the example of Zuinglc, that the kingdom of heaven was open to all who lived according to the dictates of right reason;" but Calvin, when he came among them, maintained that the everlasting condition of mankind in a future world was determined, from all eternity, by the unchangeable order of the Deity," arising from "no other motive than his own good pleasure aDd free will."3 Luther's rigid doctrine of election was opposed by Erasmus, who wished well to the Reformation, but was concerned as well for the violence with which it was carried on, as for the unjustifiable length to which Luther carried his opposition, especially with respect to the doctrine of predestination. Luther never answered the last piece of Erasmus on the subject of 1 Eccl. Hist. IV. p. ». (P.) his cause, being convinced by the reasoning of Erasmus, came over to his opinion on that subject. And it is very remarkable, that by degrees, and indeed pretty soon afterwards, the Lutherans in general changed also; and some time after the death of Luther and Melancthon, the divines who were deputed by the elector of Saxony, to compose the famous book entitled The Concord, abandoned the doctrine of their master, and taught that the decree of election was not absolute, that God saves all who will believe, that he gives all men sufficient means of salvation, and that grace may be resisted.4 The principles of all the other reformed churches are, however, still Calvinistic, and among them those of the Churches of England and of Scotland, notwithstanding the generality of divines of the former establishment are acknowledged to be no great admirers of that system. In Holland, there was no obligation on the ministers to maintain what arc called the Calvinistic doctrines, till the synod of Dort; when, by the help of faction in the state, the Calvinistic party in that country prevailed, and those who opposed them, and in consequence of remonstrating against their proceed. ings, got the name of Remonstrants, were cruelly persecuted and banished. It is remarkable, however, as Mosheim observes, that since the time of that synod, "the doctrine of absolute decrees lost ground from day to day."' With respect to the Church of Bome, it cannot be denied, that the cause of sound morality had suffered much by means of many sophistical distinctions, introduced by their divines and casuists about the time of the Reformation, as by the distinction of sins into venial and mortal; the latter of which only, they say, deserve the pains of hell, whereas the former may be atoned for • Baimage, Histoirt, II. p. 265. (P.) See Toplady, Hist. P1»-', i. p. sis. * Eccl. Uist. IV. p. 499. (P.) Cent. xrii.Scct. U. Pt. ii. Ch. ii. xii, |