The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute…The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute…

2. Secondly Have not we better helps of Art then they, especially as touching the knowledge of the Tongues, and Logical resolutions of the Text. The Latin Fathers most of them were little acquainted with the Greek; neither Latin nor Greek Fathers were usually much acquainted with the Hebrew: Origen amongst the Greek, and Hierom amongst the Latin, had not their fellows for this.

2. Secondly Have not we better helpes of Art then they, especially as touching the knowledge of the Tongues, and Logicall resolutions of the Text. The Latine Fathers most of them were little acquainted with the Greek; neither Latine nor Greek Fathers were usually much acquainted with the Hebrew: Origen amongst the Greek, and Hierom amongst the Latine, had not their fellows for this.

3. Lastly, the Ancients in their days were not so put unto it as the latter; Nothing did more quicken them, or doth us, then contentions with Heretics. And therefore look how they were exercised with Heresies, so it is to be expected they were best seen in those Articles of Faith, which were most shaken by Heretics. This both Austin and Gregory take notice of; and Austin is most frequent herein, some passages to this purpose I shall relate hereafter. Now before Pelagius his days, the Fathers were much exercised in opposing the Manichees, and accordingly gave themselves to the maintenance of Free-will, as Aniarius observes by the relation of Sixtus Senensis. But Pelagius was the first that opposed Gods grace; and therefore those ¹Fathers that contended with him, gave themselves chiefly to the maintenance of Gods grace.

3. Lastly, the Ancients in their daies were not so put unto it as the latter; Nothing did more quicken them, or doth us, then contentions with Heretiques. And therefore look how they were exercised with Heresies, so it is to be expected they were best seen in those Articles of Faith, which were most shaken by Heretiques. This both Austin and Gregory take notice of; and Austin is most frequent herein, some passages to this purpose I shall relate hereafter. Now before Pelagius his daies, the Fathers were much exercised in opposing the Manichees, and accordingly gave themselves to the maintenance of Free-will, as Aniarius observes by the relation of Sixtus Senensis. But Pelagius was the first that opposed Gods grace; and therefore those ¹Fathers that contended with him, gave themselves chiefely to the maintenance of Gods grace.

1. 1Bibl. l. 5. annot. 101.

And now am I come to the treating of Ancients no longer in general, but in a special reference to the doctrine of predestination. Now herein the Papists themselves (who in other points labour to beat us down with nothing so much as with the noise of Antiquity) are willing to confess that in the point of grace and predestination we need not trouble our selves, with inquiry after the doctrine of the Ancients before Pelagius rose, and that upon the ground before mentioned, to wit, because they were nothing exercised hereabouts. As for example Bellarmine, De Grat. & lib. Arbitr. lib. 1. c. 14. having proposed diverse passages of the Fathers favouring, as it seemed, the doctrine wherewith Pelagius troubled the peace of Gods Church, makes Austin to answer for him, Veteres Patres qui ante Pelagium floruerunt, quaestionem istam nunquam accuratè tractasse, sed incidentèr solum, & quasi per transitum illam attigisse. Addit verò (saith Bellarmine) in fundamento hujus sententiae, quod est, Gratiam Dei non praevenire ab ullo opere nostro, sed contrà ab illâ omnia opera nostra praeveniri, ita ut nihil omnino boni quod attinet ad salutem sit in nobis, quod non sit nobis ex Deo, convenire Catholicos omnes & ibidem citat Cyprianum, Ambrosisium ⟨p. 44⟩& Nazianzenum: yet he takes a course to reconcile them to the truth; so doth Sixtus Senensis Bibl. Sanct. lib. 6. Annota. 251. so doth Alvarez. de Auxil. lib. 5. disp. 37.

And now am I come to the treating of Ancients no longer in generall, but in a speciall reference to the doctrine of predestination. Now herein the Papists themselves (who in other points labour to beat us down with nothing so much as with the noise of Antiquity) are willing to confesse that in the point of grace and predestination we need not trouble our selves, with inquiry after the doctrine of the Ancients before Pelagius rose, and that upon the ground before mentioned, to wit, because they were nothing exercised hereabouts. As for example Bellarmine, De Grat. & lib. Arbitr. lib. 1. c. 14. having proposed diverse passages of the Fathers favouring, as it seemed, the doctrine wherewith Pelagius troubled the peace of Gods Church, makes Austin to answer for him, Veteres Patres qui ante Pelagium floruerunt, quaestionem istam nunquam accuratè tractasse, sed incidentèr solum, & quasi per transitum illam attigisse. Addit verò (saith Bellarmine) in fundamento hujus sententiae, quod est, Gratiam Dei non praevenire ab ullo opere nostro, sed contrà ab illâ omnia opera nostra praeveniri, ita ut nihil omnino boni quod attinet ad salutem sit in nobis, quod non sit nobis ex Deo, convenire Catholicos omnes & ibidem citat Cyprianum, Ambrosisium

Of the second, these, Sin, and Foresight of sin, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and consequently that Syllogism whereunto either of these quaternary of terms is clapped, cannot be good; For no Categorical Syllogism is good that consisteth of four terms. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogism Hypothetical, such Reductions were never heard of in the Schools of the learned and that for just reason; because that is no course to justify the soundness of the Enthymemes, but a mere begging of that which is in question. As in case a man should reduce it thus; If faith be precedanious to salvation, then the foresight of faith is precedanious to the decree of salvation; But faith is precedanious to salvation, Therefore it is precedanious to the decree of salvation. In this Hypothetical Syllogism, the consequence of the Major is the very Enthymeme which is in question, for the substance of it and consequently no proving of it, but a mere begging of it. Yet notwithstanding we do not deny, but that God did decree that no man should be saved, but such as being of ripe years, should be found to persevere in faith unto death none should be damned, but such as should be found finally to persevere in sin. The other execution of these decrees consists (as I said) in the bestowing of the grace of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others. Now the question is, Whether God be indeed the author of faith and repentance, yea, or no; and because the Arminians dare not professedly deny this. (though lately they are come so far as professedly to deny that Christ merited it) therefore let the question proceed about the manner how God bestows it, as namely, whether he bestows it of his mere pleasure on some, denying it to others, or, Whether the reason why God bestows it on some and not on others, be, because God finds some good work in one, which he finds not in another. This question being decided, it will clearly appear, whether predestination proceeds upon the foresight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his mere pleasure doth bestow faith on one, and not on another, it follows undeniably, that God predestinated him hereunto absolutely, and of his mere pleasure, without consideration of any future work of man.

Of the second, these, Sinne, and Foresight of sinne, Damnation and the Decree of damnation; and consequently that Syllogisme whereunto either of these quaternary of termes is clap'd, cannot be good; For no Categoricall Syllogisme is good that consisteth of foure termes. As for the reducing of them into a Syllogisme Hypotheticall, such Reductions were never heard of in the Schooles of the learned and that for just reason; because that is no course to justify the soundnesse of the Enthymemes, but a meer begging of that which is in question. As in case a man should reduce it thus; If faith be precedanious to salvation, then the foresight of faith is precedanious to the decree of salvation; But faith is precedanious to salvation, Therefore it is precedanious to the decree of salvation. In this Hypotheticall Syllogisme, the consequence of the Major is the very Enthymeme which is in question, for the substance of it and consequently no proving of it, but a meere begging of it. Yet notwithstanding we doe not deny, but that God did decree that no man should be saved, but such as being of ripe years, should be found to persevere in faith unto death none should be damned, but such as should be found finally to persevere in sinne. The other execution of these decrees consists (as I said) in the bestowing of the grace of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others. Now the question is, Whether God be indeed the author of faith and repentance, yea, or no; and because the Arminians dare not professedly deny this. (though lately they are come so farre as professedly to deny that Christ merited it) therefore let the question proceede about the manner how God bestowes it, as namely, whether he bestowes it of his meer pleasure on some, denying it to others, or, Whether the reason why God bestowes it on some and not on others, be, because God findes some good work in one, which he findes not in another. This question being decided, it will clearly appeare, whether predestination proceeds upon the foresight of ought in man, yea or no. For if God of his meer pleasure doth bestow faith on one, and not on another, it followes undeniably, that God predestinated him hereunto absolutely, and of his meer pleasure, without consideration of any future work of man.

But if God bestows faith on man upon consideration of some precedent work of his, which was ⟨p. 45⟩not the work of God, then (and not otherwise neither) it will follow, that upon the consideration of that future work of man, God did elect him unto faith, or predestinate faith unto him. So that if we desire sincerely and ingeniously to inquire what was the opinion of the Ancients about the absoluteness of predestination, we should state the question as touching Predestination unto faith, and not as touching Predestination unto salvation. For we all confess that God predestinated no man unto salvation, but such as he foresaw, coming unto ripe years, would believe sooner or later. And therefore the main question between the Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants was, whether this decree were the whole decree of Predestination, and whether there were not another decree of Predestination besides, as namely, whether God did not decree to bestow faith on some, and deny it unto others. And secondly to inquire, Whether this decree of bestowing faith on some, did not proceed according to Gods good pleasure, without consideration of any different work in man. And the most compendious resolution hereof, is to inquire of the manner how God carrieth himself in the bestowing of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others; as namely, Whether on his mere pleasure he hath not mercy on some, giving them faith and repentance, and of his mere pleasure, denies the gift of faith and repentance unto others. Now let the Fathers, (whosoever thinks good) be admitted to bring in their suffrages on this Article, and remember what was decreed in the first Synod that was gathered, to make peace in the Church after Pelagius had disturbed it, namely, Gratiam non dari secundum merita, that is, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, Gratiam non dari secundum opera. Lastly, all of us now a days consent, as ¹touching Gods concourse to the substance of every act of the creature whether good or evil. Now let this Author or any other, represent unto us, what footing he finds in Antiquity concerning this. But I come to answer particularly, according to this Authors text.

But if God bestowes faith on man upon consideration of some precedent work of his, which was ⟨p. 45⟩not the work of God, then (and not otherwise neither) it will follow, that upon the consideration of that future work of man, God did elect him unto faith, or predestinate faith unto him. So that if we desire sincerely and ingeniously to inquire what was the opinion of the Ancients about the absolutenesse of predestination, we should state the question as touching Predestination unto faith, and not as touching Predestination unto salvation. For we all confesse that God predestinated no man unto salvation, but such as he foresaw, coming unto ripe years, would believe sooner or later. And therefore the main question between the Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants was, whether this decree were the whole decree of Predestination, and whether there were not another decree of Predestination besides, as namely, whether God did not decree to bestow faith on some, and deny it unto others. And secondly to inquire, Whether this decree of bestowing faith on some, did not proceed according to Gods good pleasure, without consideration of any different work in man. And the most compendious resolution hereof, is to inquire of the manner how God carrieth himselfe in the bestowing of faith and repentance on some, and denying it unto others; as namely, Whether on his meer pleasure he hath not mercy on some, giving them faith and repentance, and of his meer pleasure, denyes the gift of faith and repentance unto others. Now let the Fathers, (whosoever thinks good) be admitted to bring in their suffrages on this Article, and remember what was decreed in the first Synode that was gathered, to make peace in the Church after Pelagius had disturbed it, namely, Gratiam non dari secundum merita, that is, as Bellarmine acknowledgeth, Gratiam non dari secundum opera. Lastly, all of us now a daies consent, as

He cannot find absolute and inevitable reprobation to have any footing in Antiquity. Belike he can find reprobation evitable; a strange phrase either way. These attributes applied to damnation do carry a fair sense with them, damnation being a work of God wrought in time, and undoubtedly may be avoided, may be incurred for the time to come. But reprobation is eternal as God himself, and how that should be fancied to be of an avoidable condition for the time to come, I cannot comprehend, unless this Author be of their opinion, who desire to shape Gods decrees of a revocable nature, as being both to impute unto him an impotent immutability, as some are pleased to phrase it.

He cannot find absolute and inevitable reprobation to have any footing in Antiquity. Belike he can find reprobation evitable; a strange phraise either way. These attributes applied to damnation doe carry a faire sense with them, damnation being a work of God wrought in time, and undoubtedly may be avoided, may be incurred for the time to come. But reprobation is eternall as God himselfe, and how that should be fancied to be of an avoidable condition for the time to come, I cannot comprehend, unlesse this Author be of their opinion, who desire to shape Gods decrees of a revocable nature, as being both to impute unto him an impotent immutability, as some are pleased to phraise it.

But leave we reprobation unavoidable, take we the absolute nature of it into consideration: this he cannot find in all Antiquity. But consider I pray, he pretends these motives, as inducements to change his former opinion: so then belike, he stood sometimes for reprobation absolute; but did he find any footing in Antiquity for it, what time he embraced it? if he did formerly embrace it, notwithstanding he found no footing in Antiquity for it, why should he now relinquish it, for finding no footing in Antiquity for it? Belike the older he waxeth, the more he groweth in love with Antiquity. Again when formerly he did embrace the doctrine of absolute reprobation, upon what grounds did he embrace it? was it because he was in hope he should hereafter find Antiquity for it? or was it only for the authority of them who brought him up in this opinion? What sorry grounds are these to build a mans faith upon? Yet this is not our course to impose Articles of faith on any, but rather to endoctrinate them out of the word of God. If then a mans Christian faith be built upon the Word of God, is it a Christian course to renounce it, or to question the integrity of it, because he finds no footing in Antiquity for it? What then shall become of the faith of Laics, and such as are unlearned? Must the writings of the Fathers be translated into all vulgar Languages, and the unlearned addict themselves to the study of them, least otherwise their faith prove a wavering faith, for want of finding Antiquity to favour it? Belike the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, are no part of Antiquity, in this Authors more mature judgement. But if formerly the doctrine of absolute reprobation were received upon the evidence of Gods word, as it is fit the faith of every Christian should be grounded thereupon, especially the faith of a Divine called to be a Teacher of others; I should think there were no just cause of alteration, but upon discovery of the error of those grounds, whereupon formerly it was builded; and the discovery hereof alone, were chiefly to the present purpose, ⟨p. 46⟩namely to show just cause of change of mind, & alteration of judgement, but no such course do I find taken here.

But leave we reprobation unavoidable, take we the absolute nature of it into consideration: this he cannot find in all Antiquity. But consider I pray, he pretends these motives, as inducements to change his former opinion: so then belike, he stood sometimes for reprobation absolute; but did he find any footing in Antiquity for it, what time he embraced it? if he did formerly embrace it, notwithstanding he found no footing in Antiquity for it, why should he now relinquish it, for finding no footing in Antiquity for it? Belike the older he waxeth, the more he groweth in love with Antiquity. Again when formerly he did embrace the doctrine of absolute reprobation, upon what grounds did he embrace it? was it because he was in hope he should hereafter find Antiquity for it? or was it only for the authority of them who brought him up in this opinion? What sorry grounds are these to build a mans faith upon? Yet this is not our course to impose Articles of faith on any, but rather to endoctrinate them out of the word of God. If then a mans Christian faith be built upon the Word of God, is it a Christian course to renounce it, or to question the integrity of it, because he finds no footing in Antiquity for it? What then shall become of the faith of Laicks, and such as are unlearned? Must the writings of the Fathers be translated into all vulgar Languages, and the unlearned addict themselves to the study of them, least otherwise their faith prove a wavering faith, for want of finding Antiquity to favour it? Belike the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, are no part of Antiquity, in this Authors more mature judgement. But if formerly the doctrine of absolute reprobation were received upon the evidence of Gods word, as it is fit the faith of every Christian should be grounded thereupon, especially the faith of a Divine called to be a Teacher of others; I should think there were no just cause of alteration, but upon discovery of the errour of those grounds, whereupon formerly it was builded; and the discovery hereof alone, were chiefly to the present purpose,

These motives and reasons here proposed, may carry a show of reason, why a man being yet to choose his faith in these particulars, possessed with neither way, but indifferent, might prefer one way before another, one opinion before another, but nothing sufficient to justify a change, unless the weakness of former grounds be laid open. For it may be that the former grounds might be such as upon due comparison would be found to overweigh these pretences. For upon view that I have taken of the discourse following, I find not one argument drawn from those places of Scripture that treat of election and reprobation; these I find are purposely declined as so many rocks, as if the Author feared to make shipwreck of his errors (pardon my boldness in so naming them, Austin is my precedent in this saying, Hoc scio contra istam praedestinationem quam secundum scripturas defendimus, neminem nisi errando disputare posse) but in the mean time while he fears to make shipwreck of his errors, let him take heed least he make shipwreck of a good conscience.

These motives and reasons here proposed, may carry a shew of reason, why a man being yet to chuse his faith in these particulars, possessed with neither way, but indifferent, might preferre one way before another, one opinion before another, but nothing sufficient to justify a change, unlesse the weaknesse of former grounds be laid open. For it may be that the former grounds might be such as upon due comparison would be found to overweigh these pretences. For upon view that I have taken of the discourse following, I find not one argument drawn from those places of Scripture that treat of election and reprobation; these I find are purposely declined as so many rocks, as if the Author feared to make shipwrack of his errours (pardon my boldnesse in so naming them, Austin is my precedent in this saying, Hoc scio contra istam praedestinationem quam secundum scripturas defendimus, neminem nisi errando disputare posse) but in the mean time while he fears to make shipwrack of his errours, let him take heed least he make shipwrack of a good conscience.

But proceed we with him about the inquiry what footing this doctrine finds in Antiquity. ¹He saith he cannot find it; but it is more then I find that ever he made any convenient search after it, his whole discourse hereupon is of so hungry a nature. The absoluteness of election and reprobation, we conclude in Christian reason from Gods absolute carriage in giving and denying grace, understanding thereby the grace of regeneration. Now the absoluteness herein, as we suppose, consists in bestowing this grace on some, and denying it to others, according to the mere pleasure of the Lords will. Now hath not the Apostle (more ancient then all the Antiquity he speaketh of) professed in express terms, that God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth? What need we seek farther amongst the Ancients for the justification ²of this? And that mercy here is meant, such a mercy in bestowing faith on some, which is denied to others, in converting the wills of some unto good, when others are not converted, I could prove by variety of places out of Austin, whose authority in this case is far more worthy, then all the authority this Author produceth. Neither is this the voice of Austin only, but of Ambrose also in that famous saying of his Quem vult religiosum, facit, so much magnified by Austin. And not Ambrose alone, but Nazianzen ³also, and Cyprian are alleged by him, as concurring with him in the foundation of the doctrine of predestination, which he makes to be the freedom of Gods grace in converting whom he will. And which is far more then this, yea far more then all that can be produced to the contrary, by the very Prayers of the Church every where in use, he justifies the general concurrence in that which he accounts the foundation of predestination. As when their common course was to pray unto God, that he would be pleased to convert unto the faith of Christ the hearts of Heathens; and wherein did this conversion consist, but in giving them faith and repentance: manifestly giving us to understand thereby, that the whole Catholic Church did concur in this Article of Faith, that it was in the power of God according to his free grace, to convert whom he would unto the faith of Christ, and consequently not to convert whom he would.

But proceed we with him about the inquiry what footing this doctrine finds in Antiquity.

For if there were any cause on mans part, why he doth not convert some converting others, then there were also on mans part, a cause why God doth convert some not converting others, and consequently grace should be given according unto works, that is in the phrase of the Ancients, Gratiam dari secundum merita (as Bellarmine acknowledgeth) which was ever accounted express Pelagianism, ¹and was as expressly condemned in the Council of Palestine above 1200 years ago, and Pelagius himself was driven to subscribe unto it, by shameful dissimulation so to prevent Anathematization of his own person.

For if there were any cause on mans part, why he doth not convert some converting others, then there were also on mans part, a cause why God doth convert some not converting others, and consequently grace should be given according unto works, that is in the phrase of the Ancients, Gratiam dari secundum merita (as Bellarmine acknowledgeth) which was ever accounted expresse Pelagianisme, ¹and was as expressely condemned in the Councel of Palestina above 1200 years agoe, and Pelagius himselfe was driven to subscribe unto it, by shamefull dissimulation so to prevent Anathematization of his own person.

1. 1Bellar. de grat. & lib. arbit. l. 6. c. 5.

But the upper way (saith this Author) was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers for 600 years. Here breaks forth another reason of this Authors (or his that directed him) cunning carriage in distinguishing the two ways of our Divines in maintaining the absoluteness of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the course of his discourse he might serve his turn with both, and where Antiquity served not his turn against the one, yet might it serve his turn, as he thought against the other. But the truth is, there was no such question at all ventilated in those days, as touching the object of predestination, no nor in Austins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvel; For it concerns the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is merely Logical, as I have showed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul, Rom. 9. 21. concerning the Mass, unto ⟨p. 47⟩mankind considered in Massa damnata as he commonly calls it, that is, in the corrupt Mass; but not always, but sometimes he speaks of it, and accommodates it clearly unto the Mass of mankind uncorrupt, yea, as yet not created, as there I have showed. And as for the right ordering of Gods decrees, and the right stating of the object of predestination and reprobation, We desire no better, nor other ground then that of the Apostle, God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, that is, he cures infidelity and hardness of heart in whom he will, by bestowing faith and repentance upon them, and leaves it uncured in whom he will by denying faith and repentance unto them. And as for the rigour of this Tenet (as it is commonly accounted) of making the Mass of mankind not created the object of predestination, I have already showed the vanity of that conceit and denomination; for as much as hereby neither is the decree of damnation made to precede the consideration of sin, no nor of final impenitency in any moment of nature, nor in any moment of nature is the decree of salvation made by me, to precede the consideration of final perseverance in faith and repentance. But whereas some, who are most rigid indeed in their discourse, make the decree of saving some and damning others to precede the decree of creating and permitting of sin both original and actual;

But the upper way (saith this Author) was never taught or approved by any of the Fathers for 600 years. Here breaks forth another reason of this Authors (or his that directed him) cunning carriage in distinguishing the two waies of our Divines in maintaining the absolutenesse of election and reprobation, to wit, that in the course of his discourse he might serve his turne with both, and where Antiquity served not his turne against the one, yet might it serve his turne, as he thought against the other. But the truth is, there was no such question at all ventilated in those daies, as touching the obiect of predestination, no nor in Austins neither, nor many hundred years after, that I know. And no marvell; For it concernes the ordering of Gods decree aright, which is meerly Logicall, as I have shewed in my Vind. Grat. Dei. Its true that St Austin doth usually accommodate that of St Paul,

others who are most dissolute, make the decree of creating and permitting of sin, to precede the decree of saving some and damning others, My Opinion is equally removed from these extremes, and conceives none of these decrees to be either way subordinate, but all coordinate and simultaneous, as being decrees only of various means, tending to one and the same end; thus God doth decree both to create some, and to permit to sin, and finally to persevere therein, and to damn them for their sin, to the manifestation of his glory in the way of justice vindicative. On the other side, God doth decree to create others, and permit them to sin, and raise them out of sin by faith and repentance, and reward them with everlasting life, to the manifestation of his glory, in the way of mercy mixed with justice.

others who are most dissolute, make the decree of creating and permitting of sinne, to precede the decree of saving some and damning others, My Opinion is equally removed from these extreames, and conceives none of these decrees to be either way subordinate, but all coordinate and simultaneous, as being decrees only of various means, tending to one and the same end; thus God doth decree both to create some, and to permit to sinne, and finally to persevere therein, and to damne them for their sinne, to the manifestation of his glory in the way of justice vindicative. On the other side, God doth decree to create others, and permit them to sinne, and raise them out of sinne by faith and repentance, and reward them with everlasting life, to the manifestation of his glory, in the way of mercy mixed with justice.

Farther consider that as touching predestination it self, there was no question moved thereabouts in the Church of God, before the days of Pelagius; and what credit can they get, who consult with them in such points, wherein they were not exercised. For we find by experience, that to contend with Heretics hath been an ordinary means in the course of Gods providence, for the more diligent inquisition after the truth of God and happy discovery thereof. Sancta Ecclesia (saith Gregory) in ¹suâ semper eruditione instruitur, dumb Haereticorum quaestionibus impugnatur. And Austin in like manner, Didiscimus, saith he, singulas quasque Haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias questions, contra quas diligentius defenderetur scriptura divina, quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. And on the other side, before question hath been moved on a point, the Fathers have delivered themselves somewhat improvidently, whereupon Heretics have taken advantage to countenance their errors by the writings of the Ancient. This Hierome observes in the point of Arianism, proving thereby, that the Ancient ²Writers before the Arian Heresy arose, were no competent judges in that point. Si me causas vitiorum (saith he) in Patrum Scriptis nescire respondero non statim illos Haereticos judicabo. Fieri enim potest ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a Librariis imperitis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sunt, vel certè antequam in Alexandriâ quasi daemonium Meridianum Arrius nasceretur. Innocenter quaedam & minus cautè locuti sunt & quae non possunt perversorum hominum calumniam declinare. Mark it well, Before Arrius like a Devil from the South rose up, the Fathers delivered some things innocently, yet lose warily, and such as cannot avoid the calumny of perverse persons. Upon the same ground it is, that Austin excuseth Ticonius, and that in ³the same particular wherein he approached near to Pelagianism, to wit, before the Church of God was acquainted with that Heresy; his words are these, Sed non erat expertus hanc Haeresin Ticonius quae nostro tempore exorta multum nos, ut gratia Dei quae per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est adversus eos defenderemus, exercuit; & secundum id quod ait Apostolus, Oportet Haereses esse ut probati manifesti fiant in vobis, multò vigilantiores diligentioresque reddidit:

ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine host sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique partitur. Ticonius considered not that faith it self is the gift of God, neither was he so careful to look into the truth of this; and why? surely because he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not ⟨p. 48⟩acquainted with the error of Pelagius. But this Heresy, saith he, arising in our days, hath put us upon the defence of the grace of God, which is given us through our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath made us more watchful and diligent to observe, that even faith it self is his gift, who distributes to every one a measure thereof. Hence it is that the same Austin, when Prosper signified that those of Marseilles would rest contented if he could make good the opinion which he maintained in the point of predestination, out of the Writings of the former, and more ancient Divines, returns for answer, that there was no need hereof, considering that They living before this Heresy was known, (to wit, of Pelagius) were not at all put upon the discussing of this question, which surely they would have done, had they been constrained ¹to make answer to any such as the Pelagians were. See his own words, Si hujus sententiae defensionem ex divinorum eloquiorum nos praecedentibus Catholicis tractatoribus promerem, profectò hi Fratres quibuscum nos agimus, acquiescerent. Hoc enim significastis Literis vestris. This was Prosper's motion; now mark Austin's answer. Quid igitur opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur, non habueruni necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum quaestione versari, quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur. Charity did suggest unto him, this would have been their course, had they been exercised with Pelagius, as he was. For it was his own case. For there was a time when himself thought that albeit holiness and good works consequent to faith together with salvation, were the work of God, yet faith it self he conceived to be the work of man; to wit, before he was exercised with Pelagius as appears, Liber Propositionum ex Epistolâ and Romanos.

ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine hoste sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique partitur. Ticonius considered not that faith it selfe is the gift of God, neither was he so carefull to look into the truth of this; and why? surely because he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not

Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque in praescientiâ, sed fidem elegit in praescientiâ, vel quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando eriam vitam aeternam consequeretur. For he professeth in the words following that he then conceived, Nostrum esse credere, to believe was a work of our own. Afterwards he retracteth this, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. professing, I had never said this, had I known faith it self to be the gift of God, Si scivissem fidem ipsam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque Dei donum est qui & credere, & velle, & perficere subministrat. The Papists themselves, notwithstanding the great devotion they pretend towards the Ancients, yet are driven to devise what may be said to excuse them; as in the very point of Free-will they desire to excuse Chrysostom. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth••. lib. 5. annotat. 101. Uel dicendum est sicut etiam Annianus in Praefatione Commentariorum Chryjostomi in Math. annotavit Chrysostomum interdum naturae nostrae vires plus aequo extulisse ex contentione disceptandi cum Manichaeis & Gentilibus, qui hominem asserebant vel naturâ malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum compelli. Nay what think we of Vossius himself, from whose labours it is, and nothing of their own, that our Arminians would seem to breath so much Antiquity. This Vossius professeth, they mistake him that taketh him to be of any other opinion in the point of predestination, then Austin was of. De Historicis Lat. lib. 2. cap. 17. Yet doth he acknowledge that Austin did reject the opinion of the Ancients both Greeks and Latins who went before him, in the point of predestination. Histor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, ipseque aliquandiu Augustinus, verba Apostoli interpretari solent de electione quorundam ad salutem secundum fidem & pietatem praevisam; & aliorum reprobatione aeterna ob praescientiam malorum operum quae in vita acturi essent. Sed Augustinus (here comes in the Adversative) rejectâ hâc opinion existimabat Apostolorum loqui de quorundam electione ad vitam, aliorum item praeteritione, non habitâ vel in his vel in illis ratione, sive bonorum, sive etiam malorum quae personalia forent.

Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque in praescientiâ, sed fidem elegit in praescientiâ, vel quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando eriam vitam aeternam consequeretur. For he professeth in the words following that he then conceived, Nostrum esse credere, to believe was a work of our own. Afterwards he retracteth this, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. professing, I had never said this, had I known faith it selfe to be the gift of God, Si scivissem fidem ipsam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque Dei donum est qui & credere, & velle, & perficere subministrat. The Papists themselves, notwithstanding the great devotion they pretend towards the Ancients, yet are driven to devise what may be said to excuse them; as in the very point of Free-will they desire to excuse Chrysostome. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. lib. 5. annotat. 101. Uel dicendum est sicut etiam Annianus in Praefatione Commentariorum Chryjostomi in Math. annotavit Chrysostomum interdum naturae nostrae vires plus aequo extulisse ex contentione disceptandi cum Manichaeis & Gentilibus, qui hominem asserebant vel naturâ malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum compelli. Nay what think we of Vossius himselfe, from whose labours it is, and nothing of their own, that our Arminians would seem to breath so much Antiquity. This Vossius professeth, they mistake him that taketh him to be of any other opinion in the poynt of predestination, then Austin was of. De Historicis Lat. lib. 2. cap. 17. Yet doth he acknowledge that Austin did reject the opinion of the Ancients both Greeks and Latines who went before him, in the point of predestination. Histor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, ipseque aliquandiu Augustinus, verba Apostoli interpretari solent de electione quorundam ad salutem secundum fidem & pietatem praevisam; & aliorum reprobatione aeterna ob praescientiam malorum operum quae in vita acturi essent. Sed Augustinus (here comes in the Adversative) rejectâ hâc opinione existimabat Apostolorum loqui de quorundam electione ad vitam, aliorum item praeteritione, non habitâ vel in his vel in illis ratione, sive bonorum, sive etiam malorum quae personalia forent.