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…

As for that of Minutius Felix, We deny that God doth, sortem in hominibus punire, non voluntatem. We do not say, Genitura plectitur; we say that in every one who is punished by God, ingenii natura punitur; We confess that Fatum illud est quod de unoquoque Deus fatus est; and that pro meritis & singulorum qualitatibus, etiam fata determinat. Yet the holy Ghost professeth in the mouths of all his Apostles, that both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles, and People of Israel, were gathered together against the holy Son of God, to do that which Gods hand, and Gods counsel predetermined to be done; and yet this predetermination divine, I should think, was nothing prejudicial to the liberty of their wills.

As for that of Minutius Foelix, We deny that God doth, sortem in hominibus punire, non voluntatem. We doe not say, Genitura plectitur; we say that in every one who is punished by God, ingenii natura punitur; Wee confesse that Fatum illud est quod de unoquoque Deus fatus est; and that pro meritis & singulorum qualitatibus, etiam fata determinat. Yet the holy Ghost professeth in the mouthes of all his Apostles, that both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles, and People of Israel, were gathered together against the holy sonne of God, to doe that which Gods hand, and Gods councell predetermined to be done; and yet this predetermination divine, I should think, was nothing prejudiciall to the liberty of their wills.

As for Hierome, this Author saith that he was an eager opposer of the Pelagians, but no where doth it appear, that the point of predestination comes in question between them. These very passages out of Hierome are proposed by Grotius in his Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae, and answered by Gratianus Civilis punctually, and long before by Bellarmine Lib. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. cap. 14.

As for Hierome, this Author saith that he was an eager opposer of the Pelagians, but no where doth it appeare, that the point of predestination comes in question between them. These very passages out of Hierome are proposed by Grotius in his Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae, and answered by Gratianus Civilis punctually, and long before by Bellarmine Lib. 2. de Grat. & lib. arb. cap. 14.

I answer, what is this any other, but that which the Fathers many of them have professed in saying, that predestination is secundum praescientiam; And doth not Fulgentius affirm the same? Yet is he acknowledged by Vossius, a maintainer of the absoluteness of predestination as well as Austin. Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God? or granting it to be the gift of God, did he maintain, that God gave it according unto works? If not, but according to the mere pleasure of his will, having mercy on some, while he hardened others; the case is clear, that he maintained absolute election unto faith. As for Gods decree of salvation and damnation, we willingly profess, that God decreed to save no man but upon his final perseverance in faith and piety; to damn none, but such as finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency. Now compare we these decrees together, the decree of giving faith, and the decree of saving; which of these are most likely to be the foremost; it is apparent that salvation is more likely to be the end in respect of faith, and faith the means in respect of salvation, then the contrary. And the general and most received rule of Schools is, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. I think the glory of God in the way of mercy, mixed with justice is the end of both; and that the decrees of giving faith and salvation are simultaneous, as decrees of means tending to the same end, and so neither before the other. But Hierome saith, that, ex Praescientia futurorum nascitur dilectio vel odium. I confess he doth in a disjunctive manner thus, vel ex praescientia vel ex operibus. And we know that passions such as Love and Hatred, are ⟨p. 55⟩commonly said to be attributed to God, not quoad affectum but quoad effectum, and so they may fairly stand for salvation and damnation, which proceed ex operibus in Hieroms phrase. But admit he means hereby, decretum salvandi which rising expraescientia fidei, must presuppose the decree of giving faith to precede. I answer then, there is to be acknowledged an impropriety of speech, and here is place for Gersons rule, Sancti non semper adverterunt ad proprietatem locutionis. And the rather because Hierome we never find exercised in this Controversy. And it is against common reason, that faith should be intended before salvation.

I answer, what is this any other, but that which the Fathers many of them have professed in saying, that predestination is secundum praescientiam; And doth not Fulgentius affirm the same? Yet is he acknowledged by Vossius, a maintainer of the absolutenesse of predestination as well as Austin. Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God? or granting it to be the gift of God, did he maintaine, that God gave it according unto works? If not, but according to the meer pleasure of his will, having mercy on some, while he hardned others; the case is cleare, that he maintained absolute election unto faith. As for Gods decree of salvation and damnation, we willingly professe, that God decreed to save no man but upon his finall perseverance in faith and piety; to damne none, but such as finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency. Now compare we these decrees together, the decree of giving faith, and the decree of saving; which of these are most likely to be the foremost; it is apparent that salvation is more likely to be the end in respect of faith, and faith the means in respect of salvation, then the contrary. And the generall and most received rule of Schooles is, that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means. I think the glory of God in the way of mercy, mixed with justice is the end of both; and that the decrees of giving faith and salvation are simultaneous, as decrees of means tending to the same end, and so neither before the other. But Hierome saith, that, ex Praescientia futurorum nascitur dilectio vel odium. I confesse he doth in a disjunctive manner thus, vel ex praescientia vel ex operibus. And we know that passions such as Love and Hatred, are

The last part of this Authors performance in the point of Antiquity is the Council of Arles, subscribing as he saith, the letter which was written by Faustus against Lucidus the Predestinarian (for so he styles him) and in his Epistle he insists upon two Anathema's, the one this, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse ut salvus esse possit. The other this, Anathema illi qui dixerit quod vas contumcliae non possit affurgere, ut sit vas in honorem.

The last part of this Authors performance in the poynt of Antiquity is the Councell of Arles, subscribing as he saith, the letter which was written by Faustus against Lucidus the Predestinarian (for so he styles him) and in his Epistle he insists upon two Anathema's, the one this, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse ut salvus esse possit. The other this, Anathema illi qui dixerit quod vas contumcliae non possit affurgere, ut sit vas in honorem.

First, I will answer as touching the Anathema's themselves, then as touching the credit and authority of this story.

1. As touching the Anathema's. The first proceeds as well of him that is baptized and afterwards perisheth, as of him that is a Pagan and never was baptized, and perisheth in his Paganism, as the Anathema it self witnesseth, if it be repeated at full, thus, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse, ut salvus esse possit, id est, vel de baptizato, vel de illius aetatis Pagano, qui credere potuit & noluit. By which latter clause it appears, that accipere ut salvus esse possit, is no other then to receive Possibilitatem credendi (I say Possibilitatem not Potentiam, because I find this is Faustus his usual phrase, as it was the phrase of Pelagius before him) and this is as much as to say, that every man hath power to believe if he will. Now observe I pray, This kind of power is merely nature, not that which we commonly call Grace, whereby we understand something distinct from nature. And Austin acknowledgeth both, De Gen. contr. Manichae. lib. 1. cap. 3, that all men, possunt credere si velint; and that this is no more then is signified by that natural illumination wherewith God enlightens every man, when he comes into the world, John. 1. 9. And, De Praedest. Sanct. cap. 5. Posse habere fidem, sicut posse habere charitatem, naturae est hominum. Fidem verò habere, sicut & charitatem habere gratiae est fidelium. And more then this, the state of the question between Pelagius and the Catholics of those days is so proposed by Austin, as not at all to consist about the possibility of believing or doing any good work, but merely about the willing & doing of it. In so much that Austin professeth, that if Pelagius would acknowledge the will and doing of good to be from God, as he did the possibility hereof to be from God, there should be an end of all controversy between them, and Pelagius should be received as a good Catholic. This appears in his book, De Gratiâ Christi contra Pelagium & Caelestium cap. 6. Pelagius his words were these speaking of God Qui ipsius voluntatis & operis possibilitatem dedit. Hanc autem possibilitatem (saith Austin) in naturâ eum ponere de verbis ejus superioribus clarum est. Sed, ne nihil de gratiâ dixisse videretur, adjunxit, quique ipsam ipsam voluntatem gratiae suae adjuvat semper auxilio.

1. As touching the Anathema's. The first proceeds as well of him that is baptized and afterwards perisheth, as of him that is a Pagan and never was baptized, and perisheth in his Paganisme, as the Anathema it selfe witnesseth, if it be repeated at full, thus, Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse, ut salvus esse possit, id est, vel de baptizato, vel de illius aetatis Pagano, qui credere potuit & noluit. By which latter clause it appears, that accipere ut salvus esse possit, is no other then to receive Possibilitatem credendi (I say Possibilitatem not Potentiam, because I find this is Faustus his usuall phraise, as it was the phraise of Pelagius before him) and this is as much as to say, that every man hath power to believe if he will. Now observe I pray, This kind of power is meerely nature, not that which we commonly call Grace, whereby we understand something distinct from nature. And Austin acknowledgeth both, De Gen. contr. Manichae. lib. 1. cap. 3, that all men, possunt credere si velint; and that this is no more then is signified by that naturall illumination wherewith God enlightens every man, when he comes into the world,

Now this adjutorium possibilitatis, in what sense he delivered it, Austin professeth to be obscure, both as touching the nature of it, and as touching the manner how he conceived the nature of man to be aided thereby; but in other places, saith he, where he speaks more plainly, it appears to consist in giving a law, and affording instruction. Now by the way mark Austins observation upon these words of Pelagius, Quique ipsam possibilitatem gratiae suae adjuvat semper auxilio; non ait, saith Austin, ipsam voluntatem vel ipsam operationem, quod si diceret, non abhorrere à doctrinâ Catholicâ videretur. Now, voluntatem adjuvari, in Austins meaning, is, Voluntatem praeparari à Domino ut velit; & operationem adjuvari is, voluntatem corroborari ne frustrà velit. The one operation he calls grace prevenient, the other subsequent, according to that, Nolentem praevenit ut velit, volentem subsequitur ne frustrà velit. And cap. 25. of the same Book, Non solum Deus posse nostrum donavit atque adjuvat, sed etiam velle & operari operatur in nobis, whereby it appears that Voluntatem atque operationem nostram adjuvari à Deo, is Deum operari in nobis & velle & operari quod bonum est; which if Pelagius had acknowledged he had been received for a Catholic. So that ⟨p. 56⟩he excepted not against him for acknowledging Possibilitatem volendi, atque agendi quod bonum est.

Now this adjutorium possibilitatis, in what sence he delivered it, Austin professeth to be obscure, both as touching the nature of it, and as touching the manner how he conceived the nature of man to be aided thereby; but in other places, saith he, where he speaks more plainly, it appears to consist in giving a law, and affording instruction. Now by the way mark Austins observation upon these words of Pelagius, Quique ipsam possibilitatem gratiae suae adjuvat semper auxilio; non ait, saith Austin, ipsam voluntatem vel ipsam operationem, quod si diceret, non abhorrere à doctrinâ Catholicâ videretur. Now, voluntatem adjuvari, in Austins meaning, is, Voluntatem praeparari à Domino ut velit; & operationem adjuvari is, voluntatem corroborari ne frustrà velit. The one operation he calls grace prevenient, the other subsequent, according to that, Nolentem praevenit ut velit, volentem subsequitur ne frustrà velit. And cap. 25. of the same Book, Non solum Deus posse nostrum donavit atque adjuvat, sed etiam velle & operari operatur in nobis, whereby it appears that Voluntatem atque operationem nostram adjuvari à Deo, is Deum operari in nobis & velle & operari quod bonum est; which if Pelagius had acknowledged he had been received for a Catholique. So that

As touching the second Anathema, I say that Vas contumeliae may be taken in a double sense: either to signify a vessel deserving contumely, deserving wrath; or to signify a Vessel ordained to contumely, and to the suffering of eternal wrath. In the first sense, there is no question but a man may change from being a vessel of contumely, or a vessel of wrath, into the condition of a vessel of honour; but in the second sense, it is as impossible there should be any such change, as it is impossible there should be any change in God, whereof I think there is no question: and both Faustus and Lucidus might take the phrase in the former sense: but if they did take it in this latter sense, dares this Author justify them?

As touching the second Anathema, I say that Vas contumeliae may be taken in a double sense: either to signify a vessel deserving contumely, deserving wrath; or to signify a Vessell ordained to contumely, and to the suffering of eternall wrath. In the first sense, there is no question but a man may change from being a vessell of contumely, or a vessell of wrath, into the condition of a vessell of honour; but in the second sense, it is as impossible there should be any such change, as it is impossible there should be any change in God, whereof I think there is no question: and both Faustus and Lucidus might take the phraise in the former sense: but if they did take it in this latter sense, dares this Author justify them?

2. Now I come to the credit and authority of this story concerning the Council of Arles; and

2. Now I come to the credit and authority of this story concerning the Councell of Arles; and

1. I say, suppose it be a truth; yet about the year 494. there was a Roman Council wherein Gelasius and 70 Bishops with him justify the writings of Austin, and Prosper, and condemn the writings of Cassian and Faustus, by whose procurement it is here pretended the Bishops of Arles subscribed this Epistle of Faustus unto Lucidus. And the Fathers of this pretended Council of Arles are not reckoned up above sixteen.

1. I say, suppose it be a truth; yet about the yeare 494. there was a Roman Councell wherein Gelasius and 70 Bishops with him justify the writings of Austin, and Prosper, and condemne the writings of Cassian and Faustus, by whose procurement it is here pretended the Bishops of Arles subscribed this Epistle of Faustus unto Lucidus. And the Fathers of this pretended Councell of Arles are not reckoned up above sixteen.

2. The credit of this story lieth wholly upon Faustus his relation and his honesty therein, a man infamous in the Church for opposing Austin and his doctrine of grace and predestination, as appears by the Writings of Fulgentius, Petrus Diaconus, Alchimus Avitus and others. Ado Viennensis in Chron. ad ann. 492. writes of him thus. Faustus ex Abbate Monasterii Licinensis apud Regem Galliae Episcopus facius, Pelagianorum dogma destruere conatus (which yet may be made apparent to have been merely in pretence) in errorem unde qui ejus sensus in hac part Catholicos praedicant, sicut Germadius de Viris illustribus scribens, omninò errant. Ita enim liberum arbitrium tàm Augustinus quam caeteri Catholici in Ecclesia Dei docent ut illuminatio, virtus & salus illi à Christo, per Christum, & in Christo sit. Faustus verò iste ita liberum Christianorum arbitrium docere conatur, ut illuminatio, virtus & salus non à Christo, sed a naturâ sit. Contra hunc scribit beatissimus Avitus Viennensis Episcopus lucidissima fide ejus redarguens errorem; similiter & Joannes vir eruditissimus Antiochenus Presbyter. Isidore in his Book De Viris illustribus, testifies that Fulgentius wrote seven Books against Faustus, Qui mirâ calliditate Catholicus videri volebat cum Pelagianus esset. Auctor quoque Vitae 5ti Fulgentii testatur à Sancto Fulgentio refutatos libros duos Fausti de Grat. & Liber. Arbitrio. And Petrus Diaconus in his Book De Incarnatione & Gratiâ Christi cap. ultim. Anathema dicit Libris Fausti, And this Bellarmine, de Script. Eccles. writes to admonish them, who in these Letters contend, that Faustus was a Catholic.

2. The credit of this story lyeth wholly upon Faustus his relation and his honesty therein, a man infamous in the Church for opposing Austin and his doctrine of grace and predestination, as appears by the Writings of Fulgentius, Petrus Diaconus, Alchimus Avitus and others. Ado Viennensis in Chron. ad ann. 492. writes of him thus. Faustus ex Abbate Monasterii Licinensis apud Regem Galliae Episcopus facius, Pelagianorum dogma destruere conatus (which yet may be made apparent to have been meerly in pretence) in errorem unde qui ejus sensus in hac parte Catholicos praedicant, sicut Germadius de Viris illustribus scribens, omninò errant. Ita enim liberum arbitrium tàm Augustinus quam caeteri Catholici in Ecclesia Dei docent ut illuminatio, virtus & salus illi à Christo, per Christum, & in Christo sit. Faustus verò iste ita liberum Christianorum arbitrium docere conatur, ut illuminatio, virtus & salus non à Christo, sed a naturâ sit. Contra hunc scribit beatissimus Avitus Viennensis Episcopus lucidissima fide ejus redarguens errorem; similiter & Joannes vir eruditissimus Antiochenus Presbyter. Isidore in his Book De Viris illustribus, testifies that Fulgentius wrote seven Books against Faustus, Qui mirâ calliditate Catholicus videri volebat cum Pelagianus esset. Auctor quoque Vitae 5ti Fulgentii testatur à Sancto Fulgentio refutatos libros duos Fausti de Grat. & Liber. Arbitrio. And Petrus Diaconus in his Book De Incarnatione & Gratiâ Christi cap. ultim. Anathema dicit Libris Fausti, And this Bellarmine, de Script. Eccles. writes to admonish them, who in these Letters contend, that Faustus was a Catholique.

Farther observe the Bishops who are pretended to have subscribed Faustus his Epistle to Lucidus are numbered these.

Farther observe the Bishops who are pretended to have subscribed Faustus his Epistle to Lucidus are numbred these.

Auxianus. Claudius. Euphronius. Eutropius. Faustus. Julianus. Leucadius. Megetius. Patiens. Paulus. Pragmatius.

But the Bishops that were assembled at the Council of Arles are These.

But the Bishops that were assembled at the Councell of Arles are These.

Agricii nomine Cataphronius. Caelestinus. Caesarius. Constantini nomine Leontius. Contumeliosius. Cyprianus. Eucherius. Florentius. Galliani nomine Melerius. Joannis nomine Desiderius. Julianus. Maximus. Philagrius. Praetextatus. Proitianus. Severi nomine Cataphronius.