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.

FAUSTUS, Bishop of * 1.1 Ries.

FAustus a 1.2 an Englishman, or Britain, a Priest, and Monk of Lerins, was chosen Abbot of that Monastry, when St. Maximus removed to the Government of the Church of Ries. While * 1.3 he was Abbot there, he had a Controversie with Theodorus Bishop of Frejus, about the Exemption which was decreed in the Council of Arles, which is called the III, held in 455, which Ordained, That the Bishop should perform all Ordinations, confirm Novices, if there be any in the Abby; and that no strange Clergy-men should be admitted but with his Consent, but that the Care of the Lay-men of the Monastry belongs to the Abbot; That the Bishop hath no Jurisdiction over them, and that he cannot Ordain any one without consent of the Abbot. After the Death of Maximus, Faustus was chosen to fill his place: So that he was his Successor twice, once in his Abbacy, and the second time in his Bishoprick. This gave occasion to Sidonius to ad∣dress these Verses to him,

—Fuerit Quis Maximus ille Urbem tu cujus, Monachos{que} Antistes, & Abbas Bis Successor agis.—

He was present at the Council of Rome, held under Pope Hilary in 462. Being returned into France he composed several Books, Governed the Church unblameably, lived a very Holy Life, was Commended and Honoured by the Greatest Men of his time; and dyed at last in Peace, and in the Communion of the Church.

Gennadius gives us a Part of the Catalogue of this Author's Works:

He hath Written (saith he) on the Occasion of Explaining the Creed, a Book concerning the Holy Spirit; wherein he proves agreeably to the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, that he is of the same Substance with the Father and the Son, and is as well Eternal as both the other Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity. He hath also Composed an Excellent Work about Saving Grace, in which he teacheth, that the Grace of God always allures, precedes, and assists our Will, and that all the reward which our Free-will obtains by its Labour, is not merited by it, but is the Gift of Grace. I have read also, (saith the same Person) a little Book of his written against the Arians and Macedonians, in which he shews, That the three Persons of the Trinity are of the same Essence; and another Treatise against those, who say, That there are Incorporeal Creatures, in which he pretends to prove by Testimonies of Holy Scriptures, and by the Authority of the Holy Fathers, that we ought to believe Nothing Incorporeal but God only. There is one of his Letters written in form of a Book dedicated to a certain Deacon called Gratus, who having departed from the Orthodox Faith, went over to the Nestorian Heresie. He advertiseth him in that Letter, that we must not say, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, who afterward became a God; but that she hath brought forth a true God in a true Man. There are other Works of his, which I do not speak of, because I have not read them.

It is known, and his Discourses make it plain, that he was an able Preacher. He hath written since a Letter to Faelix, the Prae∣fectus-Praetorio, a Person descended of the Patricii, and Son of a Consul, in which he exhorts him to Piety. This Writing is very suitable for those who will fit themselves for sincere Penance.

We have still some of those Works of which Gennadius makes mention, but he doth not speak of his Letter to Lucidus the Priest, who was the occasion of writing his two Books of Free-will, and Grace. This Priest was a stiff defender of St. Austin's Doctrine about Grace and Predesti∣nation, and did evidently carry his Principles too far, or at least delivered them in too harsh terms. The greatest part of French Bishops were then of a very contrary Judgment, and Faustus was one of the greatest Opposers of that Doctrine. Having had several Conferences with Lucidus, but not being able to make any Change in him, he sent this Letter, of which we are speaking, to him, to oblige him to change his Opinion. In the beginning he says,

That Charity made him under∣take to endeavour by the Assistance of God, to recover his Brother from the Error, into which he was unwarily faln, rather than Excommunicate him as some Bishops designed to do. He then puts him in mind, that in speaking of Grace and Man's Obedience, we must be very Cautious, that we fall into neither o•• the Extreams; That we must not separate Grace and Humane In∣dustry; That we must a••••ot Pelagius, and detest those that believe, that Man may be among the Number of the Elect without labouring for Salvation. He sets down some Anathema's which he would have him Pronounce. The first is against the Doctrine of Pelagius, who be∣lieves that Man is born without Sin; that he hath no need of the Assistance of Grace, but he may be saved by his own Works. The Second Anathema is for all those who dare assert, that Man, who having been Baptized hath made Profession of Faith in Jesus Christ, falling into Sin is Damned upon the account of Original Sin. The third Anathema is to him, who affirms that the Prescience 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God is the Cause of Damnation. The fourth is to all those that say, that he which Perisheth, hath not received a sufficient strength and ability to save himself, which ought to be understood of Persons Baptized, or of an Heathen, who Lived at a time when he might have believed, and would not. The fifth is to all those, who hold that a Vessel of Dishonour, cannot be made a Vessel of Honour. The sixth and last, is to him that shall assert, that Jesus Christ is not Dead for all Men, and wills not that all Men should be saved. He adds, that he will bring Testimonies to prove these Orthodox Truths, and overthrow the Errors, whenever he pleases to come to him, or he shall be summoned before the Bishops. In sum, he assures him with confidence and truth, that he that Perishes by his fault, might be saved by Grace, if he had obeyed it by his Labour, which ought to follow Grace; and that he that is saved by Grace, may fall by his Negligence and Fault. So that to fix an exact Medium, he joyns the Labour of a Voluntary Service to Grace, without which we are nothing; but he excludes Pride and Presumption, which may creep in upon the account of our Labours, knowing that it is our Duty to do what we can. He calls upon him to declare his Opinions thereupon, advertising him, that if he will not follow the true Doctrine, he will deserve to be banished from the Church, in whose bosom he hopes that he abides.

Lastly, he adds, that he keeps a Copy of this Letter to make it appear, if it be necessary, in the Assembly of Bishops, which * 1.4 must meet; and ex∣horts Lucidus to Subscribe it, or to abandon fairly and clearly in Writing, the Errors, which it condemns.

Although we find at the end of this Letter the Subscriptions of several Bishops; It is never∣theless true, as F. Sirmondus thinks, that it is no bodies but Faustus's; and that it is he only, that wrote it in his own Name: Also from the time of Hincmarus, it hath been Subscribed by none but him, as in the best MSS. and particularly in that which Canisius used.

It is then certain, that it is not the Letter of a Council, but he speaks of a Council to be held soon after, to which Lucidus was to be cited, if he persisted in his own Error; but this Good Priest being come to the Council, soon yielded to the Opinions of Faustus and his Colleagues, and did not satisfie himself to pronounce the Anathema's set down in his Letter; but he likewise ad∣ded it against other Propositions, and directed his Letter, or rather Retraction, to Leontius Bishop of Arles, and Twenty four other Bishops, who had made up a Council, where they compelled Lucius to Recant; for he saith, that he made that Retractation juxta praedicandi recentia Statuta Concilii; and he Condemns with these Bishops,

I. Him that asserts, That we must not joyn the Labour of Humane Obedience to the Grace of God.

II. Him that saith, That since the Sin of the First Man, the Free-will of Man is entirely lost.

III. Him that affirms, That Our Saviour Jesus Christ dyed not for all Men.

IV. Him that says, That the fore-knowledge of God forced Man, and Damns by Violence, and that those that are Damned, are so by the Will of God.

V. Those that say, That they that Sin after Baptism dye in Adam.

VI. Those that Teach, That some are Destined to Death, and others Predestined to Life. The Bishops of the Council of Valentia seem to have determined since the contrary to this Proposi∣tion in the third Canon; where they deliver, that they boldly own and assert a Predestination of the Elect to Life, and of Sinners to Death.

VII. He condemns the Doctrine of those who teach, That from Adam to Jesus Christ, none a∣mong the Heathens hoping in the Coming of Jesus Christ, were saved by the First Grace, i. e. by the Law of Nature, because they have lost their Free-will in Adam.

VIII. Those who affirm, That the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the great Saints before the Redemption, have their habitation in Paradise.

He adds afterwards some Propositions, contrary to the Foregoing, He saith then,

1. That he acknowledgeth the Grace of God; but after such a manner as that he joyns Man's endeavour and Labour with it.

2. That he doth not say. That the Free-will is lost, but only that it is weakned and impai••ed▪ and that he that is Sayed might have been Damned, and he that is Damned, might have been Saved.

3. That Our Saviour out of the Riches of his Goodness hath tasted Death for every Man.

4. That he desireth not the Death of him that dyeth, but is rich unto all that call upon him.

5. He professes that Jesus Christ dyed for the Wicked, and for those, who have been Damned contrary to his Will.

6. He confesseth also, that according to the disposition and order of Ages▪ some have been Saved by the Law of Moses, and others by the Law of Nature, which God hath written 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Hearts of all Men, by the hope of the coming▪ of Jesus Christ. It is very hard to salve▪ this Proposition as well as the Condemnation in the Seventh, if we understand it Literally, since none but Pelagius hath dared to affirm, That Men have been saved by the Law of Moses and by Na∣ture. But Faustus and others understand it plainly in another sense, i. e. That the Law▪ and Na∣ture have contributed to their Salvation: And for this reason it is, that Lucidus adds. That no Man can be purged from Original Sin, but by the Intercession of the blood of Jesus Christ▪ ••n the last place, He acknowledges Hell-Fire, and Unquenchable ••••ames are prepared for those who have Committed heinous Crimes; because they continue in their Sin, they are justly condemned to Punishment, which they also deserve that do not believe these truths. The Letter concludes with these words, Orate pro me, Sancti & Apostolici Patres, &c. O Holy and Apostolick▪ Fathers, pray for me: I Lucidus the Priest have Subscribed this Epistle with my own Hand; and I affirm all that is affirmed in it, and condemn all that is condemned in it.

The Bishops of the Council of Arles appointed Faustus Bishop of Ries to write upon this Subject, as he tells us in the Preface to his Treatise of Free-will and Grace, Dedicated to Leontrus Bishop of Arles. These are his Words. You have done, O my Blessed Father, a great deal of good to all the French Churches, in assembling a Council of Bishops to condemn the Error of Predestination. But me∣thinks you have not sufficiently provided for your reputation, in commanding me to put in order, and set down in Writing what was said in your Conferences; for I am sensible of my inabilities to perform it as it ought to be. The honourable judgment which your Charity hath passed upon my abilities, hath caused you to make a Choice of which you have Reason to repent. At the end of this Preface, that after this Work was finished, the Council of Lyons had ordered something to be added to it.

F. Sirmondus concludes from these Records, That the Council of Arles was held about the year 475, consisting of 30 French Bishops▪ against the Predestinarians Heresie, which began in the time of St. Austin, and had its Original in the Monastery of Adrumetum; from whence it passed in∣to France, where it was opposed by Hilary and Prosper, and condemned by Caelestine; That it was supported by St. Austin's Writings not rightly understood, as is observed in the Chronicon of Tiro Prosper and Sigibert, opposed by the Author of the Book of Heresies. Entitled Praedestinatus, and by Arnobius Junior; ranked among the Heresies by Gennadius at the end of St. Austin's Book; revived in the Ninth Age by Gotteschalci, and confuted at the same time by Rabanus and Hincma∣rus. That Lucidus, who was engaged in this Heresie, was summoned to the Council of Arles, where this Question was disputed; and he was ordered by this Council to make the Recantation of which we have already spoken That Eaustus in his Books of Grace doth only deliver the Judgment of this Council; That his Work was afterward approved in another Council of Lyons; that this Bishop is of very Orthodox Sentiments, and is still honoured as a Saint; and that Jo∣annes Maxentius, and Gotteschalci do wrongfully enveigh so much against him. This is almost all that F. Sirmondus saith about this matter, in his History of the Predestinarians.

But on the other side some able Divines maintain, that this Heresie is a meer Chimaera, and a Calumny which the Semi-Pelagians made use of to blacken the Scholars of St. Austin: That there were no Predestinarians in the time of S. Austin; That the Monks of Adrumetum who are made the first Authors of this Heresie, never thought of any such thing, but that all the contest, that was a∣mong them, proceeded from hence, that they were not rightly understood; That Cresconius and Faelix had accused Florus of denying Free-will, and the Judgment which God will render to every Man according to their Works, because they did not well understand his Sentiments, and that indeed St. Austin, who upon the relation of these two Monks, had believed that Florus was in an Error, having heard him himself, found, that he had not a false Opinion touching Grace, and that it was not he, that deserved reproof, but they, who did not understand him, when he explained his Judgment. That as to the Controversie, which arose among the French some time after; it is evident, that they are not the Predestinarians, which St. Prosper and Hilary oppose, but the Ene∣mies of the Doctrine of St. Austin, who imputed to his Scholars the same Doctrines, which were attributed to the Predestinarians. The Authors alledged for the justification of this Heresie are much to be suspected. The first is Tiro Prosper, an Author of little Credit, who says, that this Heresie is not taken out of St. Austin's books not rightly understood, as Sigibert hath corrected it, but out of St. Austin himself, q•••• ab Augustino accepisse dicitur initium, which proves, that he that inserted this place in St. Prosper's Chronicon was an Enemy to St. Austin. Predestinatus is an Author full of faults and Pelagian Errors. The same may be said of Arnobius, who doth not ac∣knowledge

Original Sin. Gennadius was a Learned man, but well known to be a favourer of the Semi-Pelagians. As for Paustus, 'tis certain he was their head; That Gelasius hath condemned his Books. That St. Fulgentius hath confuted them in 7 Books, approved by the Council of Sar∣d•…•…; That Caesarius hath written against his Doctrines in a Book approved by Pope Faelix; That Pope H••rmisd•••• hath rejected the••; That Petrus 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath pronounced Anathema against him; That the Head of a Sect so often condemned, ought not to be looked upon as a Saint; That he was in another very dangerous Error, maintaining, that all Creatures are Corporeal; That all that he says of the Council of Arles, and the approbation given to his Books by the Council of Lyons, is not true; or that the Authority of these Councils is of little consequence, since they were made of Semi-Pelagian Bishops. Lastly, that this Ancient Calumny against the Scholars of St. Austin being Re•…•… in the 9th Age, the Church of Lyons maintain'd that this Heresie of the •…•…stinarians wa•• a Chim••ra; That there never was any such Hereticks, or to be sure, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his time. If we now pass from Authority to Reason, and come to examine the Doctrines, the pretended Errors, which are fastened upon the Predestinarians, are the very same, which the S•…•…-Pelagians upbraided the Scholars of St. Austin withal, as it is easie to see by comparing them with the Objections of Vincentius the French, and Priests of Genoua, which Saint Prosper hath fully answered.

This is the Sum of what is said on both sides on this Subject. 'Tis not for us to judge between so knowing Persons as F. Sirmondus and his Adversaries, in a matter of this Concernment. Non nostrum inter vo•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 comp••••ere lites. We freely own, that both have reason on their side. Et Vitula 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dignus, & hic. &c. But we take our selves obliged to say on the contrary, that neither of them have hit upon the right, and their prejudice hath made them judge of things not as they are, but as they thought they ought to be. Now that which seems to us to be most proba∣ble in this business, is this. The Books which St. Austin wrote against the Pelagians, being pub∣lished made different impressions upon the minds of the Orthodox. They confessed all, that he had reason to maintain Original Sin, and the Necessity of Grace, in order to Salvation; but af∣ter that for the confutation of the Pelagians, he had raised subtle and nice Questions, spoken in a way different from the greatest part of the Fathers, that went before him, and laid down Principles about the way in which Grace is given, and operates in the heart of Man, about Pre∣destination, and the Calling of the Elect, so uncommon before his time, as he himself owns, and which he was himself ignorant before he was wholly engaged in this dispute. These Matters being extreamly abstract and difficult, put those to a great deal of pains, who lived in his time. And from that time they were the Original of Quarrels, Division, and Hatred among the Or∣thodox, and have been so ever since, as often as they have been revived. Cassian, the Priests of Marseille, Hilary Bishop of Arles, Vincentius Lerinensis, and the greatest part of the French could not entirely approve the Doctrine of St. Austin, being perswaded that it was too rigorous, and that bad consequences might be drawn from it. This appears by the Letters of St. Prosper and St. Hilary, written to St. Austin about that Matter. It is probable, that some unskilful Persons, who had not Wit enough to understand throughly the true Sentiments of St. Austin, nor Saga∣city enough to find out the agreement between them and that which we ought to believe, con∣cerning the freedom of Man and the Necessity of good Works, have given an occasion of drawing these pernicious Consequences; either because they came very near them, or because they were not interpreted right. And indeed we must own it, and St. Austin himself confesses as much, that it is necessary to use great circumspection in explaining Vocation and Predestination, accor∣ding to his Principles, in such a manner as may incline us neither to negligence nor despair. This was it which raised the Dispute in the Monastry of Adrumetum. Florus having brought thi∣ther from Uzel the Writings of St. Austin concerning Grace, and explaining his Doctrine in a very coarse manner, had given the Monks ground to believe that he denied Free-will, and that Ju∣stice by which God must render to every Man according to his Works. Valentinus the President of that Monastry was forced to permit two of the Monks, named Crisconius and Faelix, to go to St. Austin, and propound their Scruples to him, which they did. They perswaded him that there were some Monks, in their Monastry which denied Free-will. Wherefore he wrote the * 1.5 224th Letter to free them from that Error, and shew them how his Principles are made to ac∣cord with Man's Free-will. Afterward having spoken to Florus, he declares that this Monk had not interpreted him aright, or did not well understand him; wherefore he made a Book on pur∣pose to reconcile Grace and Free-will together. But his Explication not yet satisfying these Monks, he wrote his Book * 1.6 of Correction and Grace, to Answer their Principal Objection. We know not what effect this Book wrought among the Monks of Adrumetum; but it did not con∣tent the Priests of Marseille, but on the contrary their doubts were encreased by the reading of it. Saint Prosper and Hilarius sent St. Austin word of it, and wrote him what were the Prin∣ciples of these Persons. We have related them in making the extract of their Epistles, which are 225, 226, among St. Austin's. This Saint endeavours to explain these Opinions in his Books of the Predestination of Saints, and of the gift of Perseverance; but the more he explained himself, the less his Principles pleased the French; and the more they were perswaded, that he denied Free-will and introduced a Fatal Necessity. This was the Rumour that was current among the French about the Subject of these Books. They also made an abundance of Objections against his Doctrine. These Objections consisted in Erroneous Opinions, which they imputed to him, in pernicious Consequences, which they pretended to follow from his Doctrine, and in odious

Interpretations of some of his Opinions. His Death did not put an end to this Controversie, but to the Contrary augmented it. Saint Prosper, who had declared for his Doctrine, defended it by publick Writings, and answered the Objections, which were proposed against it. On the other side, his Adversaries extolled those Priests, who opposed St. Austin's Doctrine, and accused his Scholars of Error; insomuch that St. Prosper and Hilary, being badly used among the French were forced to appeal to Saint Caelestine, who wrote to the French Bishops to enjoyn those Priests Si∣lence, and not endure them to disgrace the Memory of St. Austin. Nevertheless this did not ap∣pease the Disputes; they still continued, and were managed with more heat and passion. Althô neither of them were separated from the Church; yet they began to use each other cruelly. Saint Prosper accuses his Adversaries of reviving the Errors of the Pelagians about Grace, and calls them Ingrateful and Presumptuous. And these on the contrary called their Adversaries Predesti∣narians, upon the Account of the Errors which they imputed to them, and which some main∣tained, perhaps for want of rightly understanding things, or of well explaining themselves. The strongest party among the French was that, which was not of St. Austin's Opinion. Faustus was not the only Enemy, which those which they call'd Predestinarians, had; the greatest Part of the French Bishops were, as we have said, of the same Sentiments. We must not wonder then, if they held a Council at Arles in 475, against these pretended Predestinarians; if they made Lu∣cidus to Retract, charged Faustus to write against this Error; and if they approved his Book af∣terward in another Council. These are Matters of Fact, too well confirmed to be called in question; but this doth not really prove, that there was an Heresie of Predestinarians at that time, no more than that these Bishops were Hereticks; it only proves that there were then dis∣putes about Grace; that as is usual in the heat of Dispute, both parties carried things too high, and that as those, who held the Doctrine of St. Austin, not explaining themselves well, gave occasion to others to impute Errors to them; so these on their side afforded them a cause against them, by condemning St. Austin's Opinions. It is true, that both of them accused each other of Heresie and Error; but we must not trust to such sort of Accusations, propounded by Persons suspected on both sides. For all the Authors who speak of the Heresie of the Predestinarians, are much to be suspected as a sufficient proof, because they are on the Contrary Party; And they that accuse Faustus of Heresie, and those of his Party, do it only because they opposed some of St. Austin's Principles, not regarding that at the time, when he Wrote, he might do it with∣out being accounted an Heretick; and that several Fathers before and after St. Austin have spo∣ken and thought as he did, without being accused for Hereticks for it. His two Books of Grace and firee-will are written with a great deal of Moderation and Caution; He rejects most plainly and sincerely the Errors of Pelagius; He acknowledges Original Sin, and the necessity of Grace to do well, and obtain Salvation; He owns, that the Free-will is much weakned since the Sin of Adam; but he maintains, that there remains some slender knowledge of good, some seeds of Virtue; that we can know, and desire to do good with the assistance of Grace, and cannot do it without it, but that God denies his Grace to no Man; That the Labour of Man accompanies this Grace, and that he must obey his motions; That God knows from all Eternity the Good and Evil, which all Men shall do; that he foresees all their Actions, and the end they will have, but he Predestines no Man to Salvation or Damnation. He thereupon sets down all the Texts which are alledged for Predestination and Grace, and expounds them according to his own Opinions. These are the Contents of these two Books, which are to say truly, an Explication of those Pro∣positions only, which are delivered in his Letter to Lucidus. Many Orthodox Authors have writ∣ten and spoken thus, and there is nothing in them but may be defended; but althô there were something to be reproved, he ought not for all that to be used as an Heretick, much less be made the Ring-leader of Heresie, since there hath not been any thing designed thereupon. I will not pursue this History further, because we shall have occasion to speak hereafter of the Renovation of these Disputes, which were never managed without Noise and Heat. And indeed two Rea∣sons seem to make it unavoidable. 1. The Subtlety and Depth of these Questions, wherein Humane Understanding is easily lost. 2. The Consequences which each draw from the Princi∣ples of their Adversaries, of which some seem to inspire Men with Pride and Presumption, and the other to cast them into Negligence and Despair. But if we would consult our own Reason a little, we shall see on both sides so many Depths, Precipices, and Rocks, as would make us tremble. So that it were better and more advantageous to the Church of God, and every Chri∣stian, to live in Peace and Silence, and not desire to dive into such impenetrable Secrets, to hold that for a certain Maxim, that we ought to beg the Divine Assistance continually; but at the same time to work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling. But 'tis time to return to Faustus's Works. We have also a Letter to Gratus, wherein he confutes the Errors of Nestorius, and lays down the manner, how the Orthodox should speak concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. We have also a small Tract, wherein he Explains, how that Son, who is begotten of the Father, is of the Substance with the Father, and Co-Eternal. To this he adds an Explication of what he had said in his Letter to Gratus, that God did not suffer by the Senses, but only by a kind of Com∣passion. The last Question which he treats of in this Writing, is of the Nature of the Soul, he maintains, that it, and all Creatures are Corporeal. Gennadius hath divided this Treatise into two Parts, and speaks of the last as a distinct Treatise. This is that, which Mamertus endeavours the Confutation of.

The Letter▪ to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, is yet preserved, but we have not the Trea∣tise of the Holy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉; nor another Treatise, Composed by way of Dialogue, comme 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉; But we have two discourses to the Monks, some other among the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which bear the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Eusebius Emesenus, and a Letter to one named 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he answers some Questions which he had proposed to him. The first is concerning 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those who are at the point of Death. Faustus answers, that that is very uncertain. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is, Whether the Faith in the Trinity be sufficient for Salvation? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it be accompanied with Good Works; and althô they have been Baptized, yet if they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one of the three 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sins, Sacriledge, Murther, and Adultery, they shall be Damned Eternally, if they do not make an Attonement by Penance. The Last is about the Nature of the Soul, and Punishments after Death. Faustus holds the Soul to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Corporeal; and Eternal Punishments, but more or less severe according to the greatness of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He hath also five Letters to Ruricius, but they contain nothing re∣markable in them.

The Style of Faustus is plain, easie, and clear, full of Antitheses and Rhymes. His Notions and Arguments are very rational and apposite. He is full of Spiritual Maxims, and Moral Pre∣cepts. One part of his Works, which we have already spoken of was in the Old Bibliotheca Patrum, Canisius hath published the Rest. They are all in the last Biblioth. Patr. [Tom. 8. p. 523.] Printed at Lyons.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Reium Rhegium.
• a 1.2

  An Englishman, or Britain.] Avitus in his 4th Letter, says, that he was ortu Britannus, habitatione Riensis. Sidonius Epist. 9. l. 9. writing to Faustus says Britan∣nis tuis. Facundus calls him a Frenchman in his Book against Marcion, Faustus Gallus; but he evidently respected the place he dwelt in. F. Sirmondus says, that he was of the Province of Aremorica. I am rather of Usher's judgment, who thinks him an Englishman.
• * 1.3

  Faustus, Bishop of Ries.
• * 1.4

  were to
• * 1.5

  It is the 46th Ep. in Trob. Edition.
• * 1.6

  De Cor∣reptione, & Gra∣tia.