A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

S. PROSPER.

PROSPER of Ries in Aquitain, altho' he was a meer Lay-man a 1.1 did yet concern him∣self in Theological Questions, and was one of the most zealous Defenders of S. Austin's * 1.2 Doctrine. He wrote a Letter to him in 429. which is among S. Austin's Epistles, in which he propounds to him the Objections which the Priests of Marseille made against his Doctrine, and declares to him their Opinions, and prays him to answer their Objections, and confute their Opinions. S. Austin satisfied him by writing his Books of the Saints Predestination, and of the Gift of Perseverance.

The Letter of S. Prosper to Rufinus concerning Grace and Free-will, was also written in S. Austin's Life-time. Who this Rufinus was is not known, but it appears by the begin∣ning of that Letter, that he had been much disturbed at the Reports, which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had spread abroad to cry it down, and wished, That upon this occasion it might be cleared. S. Prosper, desirous to satisfie him fully, explains to him, what were the Reports which the Enemies of S. Austin's Doctrine had divulged, and upon what account they did it. He saith then, that one of the Fundamental Errors of the Pelagians is, That Grace is bestowed according to Deserts, and that they made use of this Principle to revive their Doctrines. That at first they had maintain'd openly, That Man may fully perform a

good Action by the proper strength of his own Free-will, without the Assistance of Grace. But this Opinion being visibly contrary to sound Doctrine, and having been condemned by all Orthodox Christians; they had owned, That Grace was necessary for the beginning, con∣tinuance, and final perseverance in Goodness, but yet had withal declared, That by it they understood nothing else but a certain general Grace, which makes use of the Freedom of the Will, and which informs and convinces the Mind by Exhortations, by the Law, by Instru∣ction, by Contemplation upon the Creatures, by Miracles, and by the Fear of Gods Judg∣ments: Grace which hath no other Operation than to admonish a Man of his Duty, and which differs not from the Law, and that Preaching which teacheth all Men, insomuch, That they who desire to believe, need no other helps to believing, and by believing they receive Justification upon the account of the deserts of their Faith and Free-will. Whence it follows, That Grace is given according to Man's Merit, and consequently is no more Grace. That this cunning design of the Children of Darkness had been discovered by the Judgment of the Eastern-Bishops, by the Authority of the Holy See, and by the Vigilance of the African Bi∣shops; That S. Austin, who was then, saith S. Prosper, one of the most excellent Bishops, Praecipua portio Domini Sacerdotum, had fully confuted it in his Books of Controversie, and entirely vanquished that Heresie; but that he did hear, That there were some Christians, in France, which spread abroad scandalous Speeches against his Doctrine and Writings, daring to averr, That it destroyed Mans Free-will, and under the Name of Grace introduced a fatal necessity, and that he would make us believe, that Man is compounded of two different Na∣tures: That if it were so, they ought to appear openly against it, and publickly confute these Errors by writing, and not disperse them secretly against a Person, whose Doctrine, concern∣ing Grace agreed so well with that of the Church of Rome and Africk, yea, and of all Ortho∣dox Christians in the World. That the cause, why these Persons acted in this manner, was, That they could not endure what had been opposed against those things, which in their Conferences they had started against S. Austin's Doctrine; That they knew well enough that if they came to produce their Maxims in any Council, a great number of S. Austin's Wri∣tings would be objected against them, which would evidently prove that we ought to attribute all the Glory of the Good we do to the Grace of Jesus Christ, and not in the least to the freedom of our Wills. In sum, That he hoped through the Mercy of God, that he would not for ever deprive those of his Illumination, whom at present he permitted to forsake Chri∣stian Humility, that they might follow the bent of their own Wills. The Error of these Per∣sons consists in asserting, That our Vertues and Holy Lives spring from Nature, or if they proceed from Grace, it had been preceded by some good Action or Election of the Will which had deserved it. S. Prosper undertakes to confute this Opinion, by proving from Testimonies of Holy Scripture, that since the Fall of Man, the Free-will hath no Power to do any good, or to deserve any thing, unless assisted by the Grace of Jesus Christ; and that all Men being faln into a state of Perdition, through the sin of Adam, nothing but the gratu∣itous Mercy of God could deliver them. To prove this Doctrine, he brings the Example of Children who die Unbaptized, and of those Nations to whom the Gospel hath not been Preached. He adds, That Grace doth not destroy Free-will, but that it restores and changes it: That of it self it can do nothing but Evil, and all the Work it doth, tends to Man's De∣struction: That Grace cures it, and makes it act and think otherwise; but he teaches, at the same time, that its Recovery proceeds not from himself, but from his Physician. Lastly, S. Prosper refells the Calumny with which they had blackned the Doctrine of S. Austin, by accusing it of introducing a Fatality, and admitting two Natures in Man. He maintains, That he never asserted any thing like to those Errors; That neither himself nor his Scholars hold, That any thing happens through Fate, but they assure us, that all is ordered and ruled by Divine Providence; That they allow not two Natures in Man, the one good, and the other bad, but only one Nature, which having been created perfect, is faln from that Perfection by the sin of the first Man, and is become subject to Eternal Death; but Jesus Christ hath restored it by a second Creation, and secured its Liberty by preventing it and helping it con∣tinually. He concludes, by exhorting him, to whom he wrote, to read carefully S. Austin's Works, if he desired to be well instructed in the sound Doctrine concerning the Grace of Jesus Christ.

But the Adversaries of S. Austin were not contented to divulge scandalous Reports against his Doctrine, but they set down in writing the pernicious Consequences, which they thought might be drawn from it. Vincentius, who was perhaps the famous Monk of Lerins, of whom we have spoken, put out sixteen erroneous Propositions, which he pretends to be main∣tain'd by S. Austin and his Scholars. This oblig'd S. Prosper to deliver S. Austin's and his Scholars Judgment upon every one of his Propositions.

Objection I. That our Lord Jesus Christ did not die for the Salvation and Redemption of all Mankind.

S. Prosper answers, That it is a true Assertion that Jesus Christ died for all Men, because he assumed that Nature which is common to all Men, that he offered up himself upon the Ac∣count of all Men, and that he hath paid a Price sufficient for their Redemption. But never∣theless all Men have not a part in that Redemption, but those only who have been regenera∣ted by Baptismal Grace, and are become the Members of Jesus Christ.

Objection II. That God will not save all Men, altho' they desire to be saved.

S. Prosper Answers, That it may be said, That God desires the Salvation of all Men, altho there be some that shall not be saved, for Reasons known only to himself; That those that perish, perish through their own fault, but they who are saved, are saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

Objection III. That God created one part of Mankind to damn them Eternally.

He Answers, That God creates no Man to Damnation. The sin of the first Man hath damned many, but God created them not to be damned, but to be Men. He denies not his Concourse for the multiplying of Mankind. He rewards many for the good that is done by them, and he punishes, in others, the Vices that he sees them guilty of.

Objection IV. That one part of Mankind is created to do the Will of the Devil.

His Answer is, That God created no Man to do the Will of the Devil, but every Man is made a Captive of the Devil, by reason of the sin of the first Man.

Objection V. That God is the Author of Evil, since he is the Author of our perverse Will, and hath created us of such a Nature as cannot but sin.

He replies, This Objection is also grounded upon the Doctrine of Original Sin. God hath created Nature, but Sin, which is contrary to Nature, hath been introduced by the Apo∣stacy of Adam.

Objection VI. That Man's free Will is like the Devils, which cannot do any good.

He answers, All the difference is, that God sometimes converts, through his Mercy, some of the vilest Sinners, but the Devils are past all hopes of Repentance.

Objection VII. That God will not have a great number of Christians to be saved, nor gives them a desire so to be.

His Answer is, They, that desire not to be saved, cannot be saved; but 'tis not the Will of God that makes them not desire it, but on the contrary, 'tis that which stirs up the Wills of them that desire it. God forsakes no Man that forsakes him not, and very often converts those who have forsaken him.

The Three Objections and Answers which follow, are bottomed upon the same Principles with the former.

The seven last are some Difficulties about Predestination, which come all to one Head al∣most, viz. If God hath predestined some to Salvation, and others to Damnation; this Pre∣destination is the cause of all the Evil that is done, and all the Faithful, who are decreed to Damnation, shall necessarily be damned whatsoever they do. The general Answer to these Objections is this, That God hath not predestined the sin of any Man. He knew from all Eternity the sins which should be committed, and hath decreed the punishment of sins, but not the sins themselves. He damns the Wicked and Impenitent, but he makes them not either Wicked or Impenitent. It is true, he gives them not the Gift of Righteousness or Re∣pentance, but neither is he obliged to do it. It is one thing to deny a Gift, and another to be the Cause of Evil. There is a great deal of difference between not lifting up a Person faln, and casting him down. God compels no Man to commit sin, yet he is not obliged to pardon every Criminal.

These Answers of S. Prosper did not satisfie the Persons against whom they were written, but they took an occasion from them to form some new ones, which seemed to be grounded upon his Answers themselves, and upon the Doctrine of the Writings of S. Austin, who was then dead. They are reducible to fifteen.

Objection I. That Predestination is a kind of Fatality, which necessitating Men to do Evil, damns them Infallibly.

S. Prosper Answers, That all Orthodox Christians acknowledged Predestination; That none yet owned a fatal necessity of Sinning; That Predestination is not the cause of sin, nor of the Inclination to sin, which proceeds from the Offence of the first Man, from which no Man is delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which God hath prepared and decreed from all Eternity.

Objection II. That Baptism doth not take away Original Sin from those who are not Predestined.

He answers, Every Man that is Baptiz'd, being endued with Faith, obtains Remission not only of Original Sin, but of all those Sins, which he hath freely committed; but if he falls into Sin after Baptism, and dies in his Sins, he shall be damned for the Crimes which have followed Baptism; and that God having fore-known them from Eternity, hath never chosen nor predestin'd that Man to Salvation.

Objection III. That it is unprofitable for them who are not predestined to live an Holy Life after their Baptism, because they are reserved till they fall into Sin, and shall not be taken out of the World till that happens to them.

To this he replies, That these Persons fall not into any Sin, because they are not predesti∣ned; but they are not predestined, because God hath foreseen that they would fall into these Sins: If God doth not take them out of the World while they are in a good Estate, it ought to be referr'd to the Judgments of God, which are unknown to us, but are never unjust; God preserves them, not that he may entrap them into their own Destruction, 'tis his Grace which is the Cause of their Preservation, 'tis their own Fault if they perish.

Objection IV. That God doth not call all Men to Grace.

The Answer is, He calls all those to it to whom the Gospel is preach'd; but how can it be said, That they are called to it who have never heard speaking of the Gospel.

Objection V. That of those, who are call'd, some are call'd that they may believe, and others that they may not believe.

He replies, If by Vocation we understand the Preaching of the Gospel, 'tis the same Gospel that is preach'd, every where, and by consequent all are equally call'd: But if we consider the Effect of that Preaching produced in the Hearts of Men, some reject it by reason of their Infidelity, which arises from their sinful Wills, and others receive the Gospel, being inwardly enlightned by God's Grace.

Objection VI. That Free-Will doth nothing, Predestination doth all.

He Answers, This is not so, Free-Will without Grace is unable to do Good, but being assisted by Grace it doth Good. It is Madness to say, That Predestination doth of it self work Good or Evil in Men.

Objection VII. That the Faithful, who are regenerated in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Gift of Perseverance, because they have not been separated from the Mass of Perdition by the Eternal Decree of God.

He Answers, It is through their own Will that they fall into Sin, and 'tis because that God hath foreseen it, that he hath not separated them from the Mass of Perdition by his Eternal Decree. It is true, he hath not given them the Grace of Perseverance, but he was not at all oblig'd to give it to them.

Objection VIII. That God will not have all Men to be saved, but only a small Number of the Elect.

Answer. If the Will of God to save Men were so general, why did he for so many Ages together leave Men in Blindness? Why suffers he Infants to die before Baptism? Neverthe∣less it is truly said, That God will save all Men, because there is nothing which he hath not made known to them either by the Gospel or the Law, or by Nature, 'tis from Men them∣selves that their Infidelity proceeds, their Faith is the Gift of God.

Objection IX. That Jesus Christ was not crucified for the Redemption of all the World.

Answer. Jesus Christ hath taken the Nature of all Men, but that they may be saved they must become the Members of Jesus Christ.

Objection X. That God with-holds the Preaching of the Gospel from some, lest they should believe and be saved.

Answer. That if the Gospel hath been preach'd to all the World, it is not true that God hath with-holden the Knowledge of it from any: But if there be any Men that have not heard it preach'd, we must own, that it is done through the secret Judgment of God, which we ought not to find Fault with, because we cannot understand it.

Objection XI. That God compels Men to Sin by his Omnipotency.

Answer. No Orthodox Christian ever held this Maxim: On the contrary, when we read, That God hath hardned Sinners, and given them up to their Irregular Desires, we say, That they have deserv'd it for their Sins.

Objection XII. That God takes away the Gift of Obedience from those Persons that live well.

Answer. This could not have been propos'd but by those who confound the Prescience and Will of God together; he knows Good and Evil, but wills nothing but Good; he takes away from no Man the Gift of Obedience, because he hath not predestin'd them, but he hath not predestinated them, because he foresaw that they would not continue in their Obedience to the End of their Lives.

Objection XIII. That God hath created Men for other Ends than for Eternal Life, viz. to adorn the World, and to be serviceable to each other.

Answer. God hath not created them that they should be damned; they damn themselves by their Impieties, but this hinders not but that they may for all this be profitable to the World.

Objection XIV. That those that do not believe, do not believe because God hath ordain'd it from all Eternity.

Answer. God foresaw it, but he hath neither ordain'd nor predestinated it.

Objection XV. That Prescience and Predestination are the same thing.

Answer. God hath foreseen and predestinated all Things that are Good at the same Time, because he knows them, and is the Author of them, but he hath foreseen and yet not prede∣stinated Evil.

S. Prosper, after he hath thus explain'd the Doctrine of the Church, condemns in Fifteen Propositions the Fifteen Errors which had been objected against the Scholars of S. Austin.

* 1.3 Two Priests of Geneva † 1.4 did also find Fault with some Propositions in the Books of the Pre∣destination of Saints and Perseverance, written by S. Austin, and sent the Places which disturb'd them, to S. Prosper. This Saint Relates them, and Clears them in the Answer which he makes to them; wherein he maintains the same Truth, That Grace is a meer gratuitous Gift; That the Beginning of Faith is the Effect of the Grace and Mercy of God; That this Grace is not given to all; and, That we cannot do any Good without its Help.

Of all the Books that were written against S. Austin's Principles, there was none that was in so much Esteem as the Conferences of Cassi••••. That Author, in the Thirteenth Confe∣rence, under the Name of the Abbot Char•…•…, lays down Maxims quite cont••a••y to S. Austin's. S. Prosper, who had already opposed him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 voce▪ * 1.5 attacked him by Writing; after the Death of S. Austin and Pope Coelestine, under the Popedom of Sixtus. Cass••an had asserted, as we have said, That the beginning of our good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Faith proceed sometimes from our selves, and sometimes from Grace; That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have in us some Seeds of V••rtues; That our Free▪ will can na••••nally incline it self to G•…•… That Grace sometimes prevents it, and that sometimes its Motions anticipate th•••••• of Gr•…•…. S. Prosper maintains, That these Prin∣ciples are the Consequences of the Errors of the Pelagians; That it follows from hence, That Grace is given according to every Man's M••••i••s, and that Nanire is not impair'd by Adam's Sin; That they have been cond••mned 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ose Synods, which had condemned the Pelagian Errors, and in the Letters which the Popes had written against them, and that S. Austin had entirely vanquish'd them in his Writings.

The Poem called, De Ingrat••, Of the † 1.6 Ungrateful, is the most excellent Piece which S. Prosper compos'd about Grace. In this Poem, af••er he hath shew'd wherein consists the Heresy of Pelagius, and in what manner it hath been confuted by S. Austin, whom he highly extols, he saith, That there were some Christians who endeavour to revive that Heresy, by teaching, That Man's Free-Will can incline it self indifferently to Good or Evil. He makes the Pelagians to come to his Help, who exhort Persons to receive them, since they approve their Sentiments. He represents the Troubles and Perplexity they are in, and shews that the Pela∣gians have a Right to require Admission into the Church, or else they must be driven out who have espoused the same Principles. He afterwards confutes the principal Points of the Pelagian Heresy, condemned by the Church, which he reduces to Three Heads. That Man is born entirely innocent, That he can live in this World without Sin, and▪ That Grace is given according to Merit. He in the next Place shews the Doctrine of those whom he resists, which he also referrs to Three Heads. That God calls all the World by his Grace, which every one follows or rejects by his Free-will; That the Strength of Grace assists his Abilities, and teacheth him to love Vertue; That it is in the Power of Man to persevere in Goodness, because God never refuseth his Assistance to those that are inclin'd to Good. S. Prosper holds the contrary, That the Grace of Jesus Christ is not given to all, and he demonstrates it by the Example of the Infidels, who have never heard the Gospel preach'd, and because if God would save all the World, all the World would be saved; That it cannot be said, That although God would save all Men, yet they shall not be saved, because they will not; because, saith S. Prosper, it would then follow, That the Effect of the Divine Will would depend upon the Humane Will, and that God would help a Person in vain, if he would not be helped: That Grace doth not depend so upon Freedom; That it is not merely of the Nature of the Law, which makes us know Good, but it converts the Soul and Mind; That without this Grace the Law, Gospel and Nature were useless; That it plants Faith in our Souls; That it is not only necessary, as his Enemies themselves do una••••mously confess, to acquire a perfect Righ∣teousness and Perseverance in Goodness, but also for the Beginning of Faith, which is a mere gratuitous Gift, which cannot be deserved. This he proves by the Example of those who ha∣ving lived in all manner of Vices, have been saved by Baptism, which they have received at the Hour of Death: That the Error of those who attribute the Will and Desire of Belie∣ving to Free-Will, relapse into the Errors of the Pelagians, by giving that Power to the Free-Will, which hath been lost by the Sin of the First Man; That they make God himself unjust, in saying, That the Death of the Body hath passed upon the Posterity of Adam, which hath not been infected with his Sin. Then he confutes the Objections and Complaints of the Semi∣pelagians, which are reducible to Two. 1, That the Freedom of Man's will is utterly de∣stroyed by holding, That Man, of himself, is not able to do any thing but Evil. S. Prosper answers to this Objection, That the Sin of the First Man hath reduced us to that Necessity, but that we are not by that Means deprived of our Liberty, which always subsists, but which declines infallibly to evil, when it is left to its own proper Strength, but to good, when it is helped by Grace, which restores us to our first Dignity; That this Grace is the Original of all our Deserts; That the Example of Infants, of whom some receive Baptism and others are debarr'd from it, makes it appear that it is merely gratuitous, and that God gives to whom he pleases only. The Second Objection is this, That if the Grace of Living well were not given to all Men, those who have not received it are not to be blamed for living ill. S. Prosper also answers, That this Objection could not be proposed, but by Persons that did not acknow∣ledge Original Sin, because all Men being by that Sin become subject to Condemnation, and having deserved to be abandon'd for their own Offences, God would not have been unjust if he did not shew Mercy to any Man: That we must not search into the Reasons why he doth it to one and not unto another, because that is a Secret which God hath thought fit to conceal from us in this Life, as he does many others.

Lastly, He compares the Sentiments of those whom he confutes with the Principles of the Pelagians, which directly oppose the Grace of Jesus Christ; He owns that they seem to con∣demn their Principal Errors, by acknowledging that Adam's Sin hath made us Mortal, that, no Man can obtain Eternal Life without Baptism, and that Children are washed from

their Sin by this Sacrament, but that they still follow their Principles, in asserting, That Na∣ture hath yet in it self Force enough to chuse the True Good, and that the Saints, confirmed in Vertue, may resist the Devil by their own Strength, God leaving them to themselves to give them a greater Opportunity of meriting; That we ought to have these Opinions in Abomination, and must acknowledge that Sin hath made so great a Wound in our Nature that it is not able so much as to desire the Recovery of them from God, not being sensible of its own Misery; That the Gifts of Nature serve only to make us proud, and give us no manner of Power to chuse that which is really Good; That if it were not so, Jesus Christ would die in vain; That the Necessity there was that a God should die to save Mankind, ought to inform us how deep our Wound was; That the Faithful who are engrafted into Jesus Christ, ought to acknowledge that they can do nothing without him. He maintains, That it is foolish to imagine, that if the Saints have done no good Actions by the Strength of their own Freedom, they deserve no Reward; That on the contrary all our Confidence ought to be in God, and that our Vertue is so much the more worthy of Reward, as it is the more fixed on Jesus Christ; That Christian Humility obliges us to acknowledge, that we cannot do any good in this Valley of Tears, but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, which doth not destroy, but restores our Freedom, yet after such a manner, as that all the Good it doth ought to be attri∣buted to Grace, and not to it; That, in the last Place, it doth not countenance our Negli∣gence, nor hinder Men from pursuing after Vertue, since on the contrary we cannot do a ver∣tuous Action without this Grace.

These are the Books of S. Prosper, which he purposely composed for the Defence of S. Austin's Doctrine, concerning Grace. He maintains the Principles of this Saint, but he mollifies them, at least as to the Terms, especially about the Subject of Predestination to Glory and of Reprobation, which he supposes to be built upon the Fore-sight of Man's Good-works, as the Schools speak. He speaks also of the Universal Desire of God to save all Men, after a very moderate manner. But he departs not from S. Austin's Principles, as to the Fall of Man, the Necessity of Grace, the Weakness of Man's Will, as also the Beginning of Faith and Conversion, and the Efficacy by which it works upon Men's Hearts.

Indeed he hath no other Divinity that what he hath taken out of S. Austin, it was that he might acquaint himself the better with the Principles of this Father, that he made an Abridg∣ment of Divinity, made up of certain Extracts, taken out of the Works of this Father. He puts some of his Sentences in Verse. We have yet these Two Works among the Books of S. Prosper; The one is entitl'd, * 1.7 Sentences gathered by S. Prosper from the Works of S. Austin, and the other a Book of Epigrams, composed of S. Austin's Sentences: There are † 1.8 97.

He consulted no other Author but S. Austin in composing his Commentaries upon the Scri∣ptures, as appears by his Commentary upon the Fifty last Psalms, in which he follows the Explications of S. Austin so exactly, that he doth nothing almost but abridge him, and put him into other Words.

The Two Epigrams which he hath composed against * 1.9 the Adversaries of S. Austin, are also a Mark of the Esteem he had for that Father. I see no Reason to take from S. Prosper the Epitaph upon the Nestorian and Pelagian Heresies: But there is not the like Grounds for the Poem upon Providence, which contains Principles concerning Grace, directly opposite to what S. Prosper lays down in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, for the Author of the Poem about Providence maintains, That Man since the Fall into Sin hath still some Ability to do good; That the Will goes before Grace; That the Good and Sinners are equally tempted and as∣sisted, and that which makes the Righteous Men so glorious, is, that they resist, whereas the Sinner yields to them. These are the very Opinions which S. Prosper opposes in his Poem of Ungrateful Persons, and in his other Works: For though we should suppose with M. Abbot An∣thelmi, that S. Prosper sought for mollifying Terms, yet we cannot think that he proceeded so far as to deliver that for Truth which he had formerly confuted; besides, the Style of this Poem differs much from the Poem of Ungrateful Persons. The Author wrote after the Vandals broke in upon the Empire.

The Poem of An Husband to his Wife, which bears Paulinus's Name, doth in many Manu∣scripts bear S. Prosper's Name, and Bede says 'tis his.

The Book of Promises and Predictions is not S. Prosper's, for the Author is an African, and the Stile of this Work is very different from S. Prosper's other Works. Nevertheless it is at∣tributed by Cassiodorus to S. Prosper, but either it is anothers of the same Name, or in the time of Cassiodorus this Work was falsly attributed to S. Prosper, either because it was con∣formable to his Doctrine, or perhaps because S. Prosper Published it in the West. But howe∣ver that be▪ it cannot be our Authors. The end and design of the Book is to make a Col∣lection of the Promises and Prophecies contain'd in Holy Scripture, and to shew which of them are already fulfilled, and which were yet to be accomplished hereafter.

The Two Books concerning a Contemplative Life is manifestly Julian Pomerius's, of which we shall speak hereafter, [Printed alone 1487, and at Col. 1536, Octavo].

There remains nothing now but the Chronicon, Gennadius assures us, That S. Prosper had made a Chronicon from the beginning of the World, down to the Death of Valentinian, and the taking of Rome by Gensericus King of the Vandals. Victorius, Cassiodorus, and S. Isidore of Sevil, and many other Authors make mention of it. So that we cannot doubt, but that

S. Prosper hath composed a Chronicon. The first, which appeared under S. Prosper's Name, was an Addition to the Second Part of Eusebius's Chronicon, augmented by S. Jerom, which begins at the Death of Valens, and ends at the Year 455. This hath been since augmented 10 Years more in the Edition, which M. Chiffletius hath Published in his First Tome of his Col∣lection of the French Historians. This is the very same which F. Labbe hath Published entire in his First Tome of his Bibliotheca Manuscripta. It begins at the Creation of the World, and ends at the Year 455. But M. Pitthaeus hath Published another which begins and ends at the same Year, which bears S. Prosper's Name, but he gives it the Name of Tiro, which might make us think it some other Author's. Some believe that the First is S. Prosper's, and that the Second is not. Some others think that neither of them is his, others, that both are his. In my Judgment the most probable Opinion is, That the Chronicon Published by F. Labbe is the Genuine Chronicon of S. Prosper, and that M. Pitthaeus's is the same Chronicon, to which some other Person hath made an Addition. For to think, That there were Two Authors of the same Name, and at the same time, who have made Two Chronicon's which begin and end at the same Year, is very improbable to me.

F. Sirmondus hath Published a little Book intitled, * 1.10 The Confession of S. Prosper, 'Tis a small Book of little consequence, and unworthy of this Father. He made also a Paschal Ta∣ble, but we have it not.

Trithemius places among the Works of S. Prosper a Summary of Three Hundred Questions, but he seems to me to mean his Book of Maxims taken out of S. Austin, which perhaps was much larger than now it is. And indeed, This Book begins with the same words which Tri∣themius cites as the beginning of the Summary of S. Prosper. He also attributes to him a Treatise of Famous Men, The History of the taking of Rome, and some Letters. But since Trithemius doth not say, That he ever saw these Works, and he is not very Ancient, we c••••∣not much depend upon his Testimony concerning them.

The Chronicon of S. Prosper Teaches us, That he survived the Year 455, and Victorius writing his Paschal Rule in 457, speaking of him, as a Person then Dead, makes the time of his Death evident to us.

Gennadius says, That S. Prosper's Stile is Scholastick, and that there is great force in what he says. Nervosus Assertionibus. He treats of very difficult matters with much subtilty and clearness. He imitated S. Austin, but was more concise. His Discourse is neither Beautified nor Pompous, but Masculine and Vigorous.

These are the chief Editions of this Father's Works, 1. At Lyons in 1539, Folio. 2. At Louvain in 1566, [Quarto.] 3. More large and correct at Doway in 1577, [Octavo.] But some preferr the Edition at Cologne in 1609, Octavo. These works are also Printed with S. Leo's at Paris in 1671, and several times since. [Besides these Editions they were Printed at Cologne in 1565, Quarto. And 1618, Octavo. At Lyons 1639. And in Biblioth. Patrum, Tome VIII. P. 1.]

Notes

• a 1.1

  Prosper of Ries, altho' he was a meer Lay-man.] He was neither a Priest nor Clergyman, when he wrote to S. Austin, as appears by his Letter. In his Letter to Rufinus and the People of Geneva, he assumes to him∣self the Title neither of Bishop nor Priest. All the Ancients who have spoken of him, give him neither of these Titles. Victorius Aquitanus, in the Preface of his Chronicon, having given Eusebius the Title of Bishop, and Jerom of Priest, calls S. Prosper, Vir venerabilis, a Reverend Person. This was written a little after S. Prosper's death. Pope Gelasius gives him no other Title but Vir religiosissimus, altho' he calls Austin Bishop, and Jerom Priest. Gennadius, who never omits the Titles of the Authors he speaks of, says of S. Prosper only, That he was Homo Aquitanicae regionis. S. Fulgentius in his Book to Mo••imus, ch. 30. Prosper Vir eruditus. Marcellinus and Ado, in their Chronica, call him also, Hominem Aquitanicae regi∣onis. Hincmarus, Florus, Prudentius, Rabinus, ne∣ver give him the Title of Bishop or Priest. None but Honorius Augustodunensis, or rather some Igno∣rant Scribe, hath called him, Episcopum Aquitanicae regionis, by changing Homo into Episcopus. Trithemius makes him Bishop of Ries, but that cannot be, be∣cause Maximus was Bishop there in S. Prosper's Life-time, and he had for his Immediate Successor, Faustus, who out-lived S. Prosper. This appears by Si∣donius's Eucharistical Poem, dedicated to Faustus, where he says, That Faustus succeeded Maxi∣mus twice; once in the Abbacy of the Monastery of Lerins, another time in the Bishoprick of Ries. It is ridiculous to say▪ that he was of Rhegium in Italy. There were two Prosper's Bishops in France, but one was Bishop of Orleans, to whom Sidonius's 15th. Letter of his 8th. Book is directed, and the other subscribed the Councils of Vaison and Carpeniras.
• * 1.2

  S. Prosper.
• * 1.3

  [Camil•••••• and Theodo∣rus.]
• † 1.4

  [Gen••a▪ Cave. Voss.]
• * 1.5

  This Book was printed a∣lone at Ley∣den, 1606. and at Arras 1628.]
• † 1.6

  [So he calls the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, as being un∣grateful in denying that Grace which God so free∣ly bestows on Men.]
• * 1.7

  [These were printed alone at Helmstadt, anno 1613.]
• † 1.8

  [98. Cave.]
• * 1.9

  [In obtre∣ctatorem, Cavc.]
• * 1.10

  [Confessio Fidei. Cave. Printed a∣lone, Paris, 1619.]