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.

St. FULGENTIUS.

GOrdianus a Senator of Carthage, being forc'd to fly into Italy for safety, during the Persecution of Gensericus King of the Vandals, bad two Children who return'd into Africk: And they being forc'd away from Carthage, settled at Telepta, a City in the Province of Byzacena. One of them call'd Claudius was the Father of St. Fulgentius, who was born about the Year 464; his Mother, call'd Mariana, by good luck continued a Widow, and put her Son to learn Greek, who became very skilful in that Tongue. Assoon as he was capable of an Employ, he was made Procurator, or Re∣ceiver of the Revenues of his Province. But this Employment displeas'd him, because of the rigor he was forc'd to use, for levying the Taxes upon the People, and therefore he resolv'd to retire from the World, and lead a Religious Life. This Design he communicated to a holy Bishop call'd Faustus, who had withdrawn from a Monastery near his Bishoprick; and he put it in execution, notwithstanding the tears and dissuasives of his Mother. He put himself under the discipline of this good Bishop, but the Persecution parting them, he went into another Monastery, where there was an Abbot call'd Felix, who made him his Collegue. The Incursions of the Moors scatter'd the Reli∣gious of this Monastery, and they retir'd into the Country of Sicca, thinking to find there a place of Refuge; but an Arian Priest, call'd Felix, caus'd the Abbot Felix and St. Fulgentius to be im∣prison'd, and would not allow them their liberty until their Bodies were torn with whips. St. Ful∣gentius

took then a Resolution to go into Egypt, to improve himself by the example of the Monks of that Country; and having embark'd upon this de••ign, he arriv'd at Syracuse, where the Bishop Eulalius dissuaded him from making this Voyage, because the Monks of the East had separated from the Communion of Rome. He cons••••••ed also a Bishop of Africk, who had retir'd into Sicily who advis'd him to return to his own Country, after he had made a Journey to Rome.

King Theodorick was then in the City, when he arriv'd there, which was in the Year 500. After he had paid his Devoirs to the Sepulchres of the Apostles, he return'd into his own Country, where he built a Monastery.

Afric was then under the Dominion of Thrasimond King of the Vandals, and Arian and a cruel Ene∣my to the Catholicks. He had forbidden to Ordain Catholick Bishops in the room of those that died; but the Bishops of Africk had taken up a Resolution to Ordain them in spight of the Prince's Prohibition. St. Fulgentius knowing this, and fearing least he should be Ordain'd, hid himself till such time as he understood that the Ordinations were over. But when he appear'd the Bishoprick of Ruspa was vacant, and he was Ordain'd Bishop of that See against his will in the Year 504, or 508. Being made Bishop, he chang'd neither his Habit nor manner of Living, but us'd the same Austerities or Abstineace as before; he still lov'd the Monks, and delighted to retire into a Mona∣stery, when the discharge of his Sacerdotal Function allow'd him any time of respite. Afterwards he had the same Fate with all the Catholick Bishops of Africk, whom King Thrasimond banish'd in∣to the Isle of Sardinia. Altho he was not the most ancient among them, yet he was consider'd as their Head; for they made use of his Pen and his Wit for writing and taking Resolutions. So great was his Reputation, that King Thrasimon•• had the Curiosity to see and hear him; and having sent for him to Carthage, he propos'd to him a great many Difficulties, which he resolv'd in such a man∣ner as satisfy'd the King: But because he confirm'd the Catholicks, and converted many Arians, their Bishop at Carthage pray'd the King to send him back again to Sardinia. Thrasimond dying in the Year 522, his Son Hildericus recall'd the Catholick Bishops, whereof St. Fulgentius was one, at whose return there was great Joy. He return'd to his Bishoprick, govern'd his Clergy, admitted many Monks into Orders, and continued to lead an Exemplary Life. At this time he gave an ex∣cellent example of Humility, in refusing to be preferr'd before a Bishop who said he was more ancient then Fulgentius, altho this preference was approv'd in a Council. He died the last day of the Year 529, according to some, or 533, according to others.

The first Treatise of St. Fulgentius, according to order of time, is an Answer to ten Objections of the Arians. Probably he wrote it at the time when he was at Carthage, by the Order of King Thra∣simond, in answer to the Objections which the Arians propos'd against the Eternity and Equality of the Son. The Objections are short, obscure, and ill-digested; on the contrary the Answers are long and methodical.

The three Books to King Thrasimond he compos'd about the same time, in Answer to a long Dis∣course which this King had sent him by one of his Officers, who had orders to withdraw immedi∣ately, and desire of him an Answer. When the King press'd him to answer it, without returning it back to him, altho he had scarce leisure to run over some pages of it, yet he refuted in three Books what he could remember of it. In the first he proves, that there are in Jesus Christ two per∣fect Natures united into one Person; and chiefly he endeavours to refute that Error of the Arians, whereby they affirm'd, that Jesus Christ had no Soul, but the Divinity to him supplied the place of one. In the second he proves the Immensity of the Son of God. In the last he returns to the Mystery of the Incarnation, and shows the union and reality of the two Natures in One Person only; and he explains the difficulties which may be started about the terms that he uses to express this Uni∣on.

This Discourse was refuted by an Arian Bishop nam'd Pinta; but St. Fulgentius presently wrote an Answer against him, wherein he show'd, says the Author of his Life, That his Adversaries were overthrown by his first Discourse, and that the Objections they made against him were vain. We have a Writing which goes under the Name of St. Fulgentius, and under the Title of an Answer to Pinta; but the Criticks observe that it is none of St. Fulgentius's. For, 1. The Treatise which this Author opposes is not an Answer to three Books of St. Fulgentius, which he address'd to King Thrasimond, but quite another Work. 2. The name of Pinta is not found in any part of the Book. 3. The Style is different from that of St. Fulgentius. 4. He makes use of another Version of the Bible. 5. It appears that the Author of this Treatise was not well skill'd in Greek, since he says, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies unus; but St. Fulgentius, who was perfectly Master of this Tongue, could not be guilty of so gross a fault.

St. Fulgentius being sent back to Sardinia, he composed there three Books in Answer to the Que∣stions of his Friend Monimus: The first was concerning the Opinion of St. Austin of the Predesti∣nation of God to Evil, or Damnation. St. Fulgentius explains this in the whole first Book, where he makes it appear, that according to the passages of Scripture, and the Opinion of St. Austin, God does not predestinate bad men to Evil or Sin, since he predestinates them only to what they should do, but that he predestinates them to the Pain or Punishment which they had deserv'd by their sins: That he prevents good men to save them, but as to the wicked, he finds them worthy of Damna∣tion from themselves: That the beginning of the Vocation, Justification, and Glorification of the Elect, are the effects of Predestination; but the same cannot be said of the sins of the Reprobrate

which he foresees, but does not predestinate; but after he has foreseen them, he predestinates the Punishment that is to follow them.

The second Question of Monimus, is concerning the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, viz. Whether it be offer'd to God the Father only, as some of the Fathers seem'd to affirm. This furnish'd an Argument to the Arians, who endeavour'd to prove by it, that Jesus Christ is not God. In refuting them, St. Fulgentius proves at the beginning of the second Book, that the Sacrifices of the Old and New Testament were offer'd to the Son and Holy Spirit as well as to the Father, and that altho the Father only is nam'd, yet all the Trinity ought to be comprehended under his Name. Afterwards he explains a third Question, How the Mission of the Holy Ghost is desir'd to consummate that Sacrifice which is offer'd to the whole Trinity. And first he shows that the mission of the Holy Ghost is not contrary to his Immensity; that oft-times under the Name of the Holy Spirit is to be understood his Gifts, and the effects which he produces, and not his Person: That when at the Sa∣crifice of the Mess the Holy Spirit is desir'd to descend, then we pray for Charity, Peace and Uni∣on, which are the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the whole Trinity.

The last Question of Monimus is about the Explication of what St. Paul says, That Virginity is a matter of Counsel, and not of Command; and about Fulgentius's comparing it to the two pence of Su∣pererogation. Upon this Subject he relates the different Opinions of St. Ambrose, St. Austin and Op∣tatus, and shows that it is a matter of small importance, after what manner the two pence of Super∣erogation be understood.

In the last Book he treats of the true sense of these words, The Word was with God, and answers the impertinent Difficulties which the Arians started about this passage.

The Books about Remission of Sins, are in answer to another Question propos'd to St. Fulgentius by Euthymius; viz. Who those are to whom God pardons sins in this life, and whether he pardons them only in this life. St. Fulgentius shows in the first Book, That none can obtain remission of sins, nor be saved, who is out of the Church, and that none of those who are in the Church can obtain par∣don, unless he be truly Converted, and cease to commit sin, and to love the Creature, so as to set his heart upon it.

In the second Book he proves by many Reasons founded upon passages of the Holy Scripture, That there is no remission of sins to be obtained but in this life, and that all those who dye in a bad estate, shall be damned without any mercy: Which gives us to understand that he speaks only of mortal sins which deserve damnation.

But Fulgentius's words are general, That all those who dye in a bad estate shall be damn'd; which will not admit of this distinction, but do plainly overthrow the Doctrine of Purgatory: for what∣ever a man's sins be in which he dies unrepented of and unpardon'd, he dies in a bad estate. But Fulgentius could not have said, that every one who dies in this state shall be damn'd without mercy, had he believ'd a Purgatory, into which many are thrown, who die in a bad estate, for their venial sins unpardon'd. And this general sense of the words is confirm'd by what he says, in his Treatise of Faith address'd to Peter, That there is no state wherein a man can deserve well, but only during this life; and, That those who die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others, i. e. (those who die in a bad estate) shall be condemn'd to eternal punishment; where he plainly asserts two different states only after this Life, without any mention of a third, which is now believed to be Purgatory by the Roman Church. And to the same purpose he tells us in his Answer to the Questions propos'd by Ferrandus, That it is unprofitable to baptize the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sins after it is gone out of the Body, and Flesh alone is not capable of sin; which Argument were of no force, if the Soul might obtain after this Life remission of venial sins by the Pains of Purgatory; for then it might be profitable to baptize the Dead for obtaining the pardon of these sins, and deliver∣ing Souls out of Purgatory.

The most part of the Letters of St. Fulgentius were written in the time of his Exile. The first is address'd to Proba, who was descended of the illustrious Family of the Anicians. There he ex∣tols Virginity, and shows how necessary it is that it should be joyn'd with Humility; and he gives also many useful Instructions to a Christian Virgin.

He address'd also another Letter to her concerning Prayer and Compunction of heart; wherein he recommends particularly this last Vertue. He compo'd also at the desire of this Virgin two Treatises concerning Prayer and Fasting, which are now lost.

In another Letter he comforts a Roman Lady call'd Galla, who was thought to be the Daughter of Symmachus; and understanding that she was resolv'd to live a Widow, he entertains her with a de∣scription of the happiness of that state, and the manner in which she should live.

He wrote to Theodorus a Roman Senator, to confirm him in the design he had taken up of quit∣ting his Secular Employments to dedicate himself to God, and informs him that this Conversion was owing to the Grace of Jesus Christ.

The Letter concerning the Conjugal Duty and the Vow, is upon a particular case. Some had ask'd Fulgentius, Whether a married Person was oblig'd to keep a Vow of Continence. For resolving this Question. St. Fulgentius makes many Observations concerning the use of Marriage, and the Obliga∣tion of Vows. He remarks upon the first Head, That the use of Marriage is allow'd, when it is in∣tended for the procreation of Children; but when it has no other end but pleasure, altho it is not a Crime like Adultery, yet it is always a small sin, which is blotted out by Prayer and good Works. As to the

Vow, he says, That there is no doubt but by it an Obligation is contracted to do the thing which was vow'd. But he maintains, That the Vow of Continence made by one of the married Persons, cannot ob∣lige the other, nor dispense with that Person who made the Vow for paying the Conjugal Duty to the other, at least unless both parties had concurred in making the Vow. Having laid down these Principles, he concludes, That if the Persons who wrote to him, had both made a Vow of Continence, then they were oblig'd to keep it; and that if they found themselves tempted by Carnal Desires, they should humbly pray to God to give them Grace to resist them; but if only one of the two had made the Vow of Continence, that party was oblig'd to pay the Conjugal Duty to the other, who had not made it. He concludes with some Reflexions upon the Duties of married Persons, and chiefly upon the Education of their Chil∣dren.

In the Letter to the Abbot Eugippius, he treats very largely of the Advantages of Charity, and the Love of our Neighbour. He thanks him for his Present, and acquaints him that he had sent him his Letters to Monimus.

St. Fulgentius wrote, at the desire of Junilius, who was one of his Friends, a Letter about Pe∣nance to an unknown Woman, call'd Venantia. There he shows, That remission of sins, committed after Baptism, may be obtain'd in this Life, provided one be sincerely penitent. From whence he con∣cludes that these sinners ought not to despair, but neither ought they to hope without striving and doing of Penance.

The Treatile of Faith address'd to Donatus, contains an exact Explication of the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

We have already spoken of the Question started by the Monks of Scythia upon this Proposition, One of the Trinity did suffer, which they would maintain to be Catholick, and oblige others to ac∣knowledge it for such. Their Faction was very powerful in the East, and they had their Compli∣ces in the West. They had sent, as we have already observ'd, Deputies to Rome, to maintain their Opinions there, and Peter the Deacon was at the Head of them. These Deputies not finding that footing in the Church of Rome which they expected, thought fit to consult the Bishops of Africk which were banish'd to the Isle of Sardinia: And therefore in the Year 521 they address'd to them a Writing, wherein they declar'd their Belief concerning the Incarnation and Grace, and founded it upon the Testimonies of the Fathers.

As to the Incarnation, they acknowledg'd two Natures in Jesus Christ, united into one Person only, without confusion and mixture. They reject the Sentiment of those who professing to be∣lieve one Nature Incarnate in Jesus Christ, do not receive the Decision of the Council of Chalce∣don, or who admitting two Natures, would not say that there is but one Nature of the Word In∣carnate. From these Principles they conclude, That the Virgin is truly the Mother of God; That the Union of the two Natures is essential and natural; That the Person of Jesus Christ is compos'd of two Natures without any change happening to him; That the Trinity continues the Trinity still, tho one of the Persons of this Trinity was Incarnate; That his Flesh is not become a part of the Trinity, but is become the Flesh of one Person of the Trinity. From whence it comes to pass, that one may say, That one of the Trinity suffer'd and was crucified in his Flesh and not in his Divinity; that it was not Man who was made God, but God who was made Man. They profess to receive the four first General Councils, and the Letters of St. Leo, and to condemn the Errors of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and of all those whom the Apostolick See had regularly condemn'd.

As to Grace they follow the Principles of St. Austin, and declare that they believe that the first Man was created without Concupiscence, and with a perfect liberty to do good and evil, and that by falling into sin he was chang'd both in his Body and his Soul; that he lost his own Liberty, and became a Slave to sin; that since that time all men are born in sin; that nothing but the Grace of Jesus Christ can deliver us from sin; that without this, we can neither think nor desire that which is good; that Grace worketh in us to do, not by any necessitating violence, but by the sweet inspirati∣on of the Holy Spirit; that no Man can say, 'Tis in my power to believe if I will, since Faith is the gift of God, who worketh in us to believe and to will; that the passage of the Apostle, which says, God would have all Mankind to be sav'd, ought not to be objected against this Doctrine, to prove that nothing hinders us to be sav'd if we will: For if this were so, there would be no ne∣cessity to have recourse to the unsearchable Judgments of God for explaining the reason why one is call'd, and another not; that if God would effectually have sav'd the whole World, he should have wrought in Tyre and Sidon those Miracles which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, since he knew, that if they had been wrought in these two former Cities, their Inhabitants would have repented; that the beginning of good Thoughts, the consent of the Will to do good, cometh to us from God, who produces them in us by his Holy Spirit. They cite for proof of these Principles, some passages of St. Basil, of the Popes St. Innocent and St. Celestin, and of the Council of Africk. They conclude with Anathematizing Pelagius, Celestius and Julianus, and those who are of their O∣pinion, together with the Books of Faustus about Predestination. This Confession of Faith is sign'd by Peter a Deacon, John and Leontius Monks, and by another John a Reader. They pray the Bishops of Afric to approve their Exposition of Faith, that so being supported by their Authority, they may be able to stop the mouth of those who disgrace them.

The Bishops of Afric employ'd St. Fulgentius to write them an Answer; and their Letter bears the names of fifteen Bishops only, who did not only approve in this Letter all the Points of the Confession of Faith, which we have just now explain'd; but did also enlarge and confirm them, without excepting so much as that Proposition, One Person of the Trinity did suffer. They enlarged very much upon the Proofs of Original Sin, the Necessity of Grace for the beginning of Fa••th, upon its Efficacy, upon the Insufficiency of Free-will to do good. They confess that Grace does not de∣stroy our Free-will, but they maintain that our Free-will, which without Grace is not sufficient to do any thing but sin, is deliver'd from this Bondage by Grace, which sets us truly at liberty. They confess also that in some sense it may be said, that Nature has power to believe and to do good, be∣cause Faith and Charity are proper for Human Nature, and Man was created only to believe and do good; but that since the Fall, he cannot have Faith, nor do good unless God give him the pow∣er, as the Soul gives Life to the Body which is capable of being animated. That when the Apostle says, Ther•• are some People who do by nature what the Law commands, this is to be understood of Faithful People and such as were Converted; That neither the knowledge of God nor Faith will avail us any thing without Charity; that the Law of Nature does not deliver us from sin without Grace; that it must be referr'd to the incomprehensible Judgments of God, that he does not effe∣ctually will all Men to believe; that it is sufficient for us to acknowledge with humility his Mer∣cy wholly gratuitous in those who are sav'd, and not to doubt his Justice as to those who are dam∣ned; that those who understand this passage of St. Paul, That God would have all Men to be sav'd, so as to make a Man's Salvation depend upon his own Will, are grosly mistaken; that the example of Infants dying without Baptism, who are condemn'd to Eternal Punishment (for this is the term which Fulgentius uses) without committing any voluntary sin, does confound them: That therefore the words of the Apostle are to be understood in this sense, that no man is sav'd but by the Will of God, because he cannot prevent the fulfilling of God's Will, neither can the effect of it be hin∣dred by the malice of Men; and that 'tis certain, that all those whom God would have sav'd are infallibly sav'd; that it may also be said, that by all men are to be understood, all men who are to be sav'd; that often-times in Scripture all the World is taken for a part of Mankind. Lastly, That God who created Man, hath provided for him by the Decree, by which he predestin'd him, Faith, Justification, Perseverance and Glory, and whosoever does not acknowledge the Truth of this Pre∣destination shall not be of the number of the Elect, nor have any share in that Salvation; That not∣withstanding the Faithful ought constantly to pray, and to have Charity for these Persons, that God would give them his Grace to enlighten them, and to make the Word fruitful in them; for in vain does the Word of God strike our Ears, if God does not open our Understanding by his Grace. Thus ends this Answer of the Bishops of Afric, which is worthy of the Faithful Disciples of St. Au∣stin.

The Books of Faustus against these Principles were publish'd at Constantinople, and because they made a great noise these Monks sent them to St. Fulgentius, who wrote seven Books to refute them. This Work is not printed: Father Vignerus of the Oratory had a Manuscript of it, but since his Death it is not known what is become of it. St. Fulgentius had finish'd it before he was call'd back into Afric.

When he was upon his return thither, he wrote upon the same subject, and according to the same Principles, three Books of Predestination and Grace, address'd to John the Priest, and Venerius a Deacon. He shows in the first Book, That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that it does not depend upon the prospect of Men's Merits. The example of Infants is one of his strongest Proofs. But whereas some save themselves by saying, That God permits them to receive, or not to receive Bap∣tism, according to the knowledge of the good or evil which he foresaw they should have done if they had liv'd, he rejects this Solution, and this middle Science.

In the second Book he confesses, that the Good and Evil have a Free-will; but he maintains that it is aided and improv'd in good Men by Grace, and that it is weakned and punish'd in the bad; that it is God who converts us, and worketh in us to will that which is good; that 'tis he who gives us the design and will to pray; that the Will of Man always follows the grace of God which precedes it. Towards the end he confutes the Opinion of his Adversaries, who affirm'd, That the Vessels of ho∣nour and dishonour mention'd by the Apostle, are not the Predestinate and the Reprobate; but the Vessels of dishonour are the Poor, the Monks and Ecclesiasticks; and the Vessels of honour are the No∣ble, the Rich and the Potentates of this World. He proves that this Exposition is false; and here∣upon he says, That in this World there is no Dignity in the Church above that of a Bishop, nor in Secular Affairs above that of a Christian Emperor; but all the Bishops and Emperors are not Ves∣sels of Mercy, but only those who acquit themselves well in their Offices. A Bishop, says he, shall not be sav'd, because he is a Bishop, but he shall be sav'd, if he watch over his Flock, if he preach the Word in season and out of season, if he reproves sinners, if he uses to them Entreaties and Rebukes with all kind of patience and meekness; if he has not the spirit of domineering and pride; if, according to the Command of the Apostle, he serves for an Example to all his Flock: So likewise an Emperor is not a Vessel of Mercy destin'd to Glory, because he has the Soveraign Power, but he shall be, if he live in the Orthodox Faith; if being possessed of true Humility, he makes his Royal Dignity subservient to Religi∣on; if he loves rather to serve God with fear, then to command his People with pride; if he moderates his severity by a spirit of meekness, if his power is accompanied with goodness, if he would rather be lov'd

then fear'd, if he minds nothing but the good of his Subjects, if h•• loves Justice without forgetting Mercy, if he remembers, in all his Actions, that he is a Son of the Church, and that he ought to employ his power for its quiet and peace: For this Honour for the Church makes the Emperors greater and more glorious, then all their Battels and Victories.

In the third Book he returns to Predestination, and having affirm'd that it is gratuitous, that Vo∣cation, Justification and Glory are its effects; that it is infallible and certain, that the number of the Predestin'd is determin'd, and that it is impossible to add too, or take away any from them; he an∣swers this great Objection, That if this were so, we ought then neither to pray nor watch, but follow our own Wills, since if we are of the number of the predestin'd, we shall infallibly be sav'd; and if we are not, we cannot be sav'd. He says, That this Objection is like that of those to whom God should promise a long Life, when they infer from this promise, that they will no more take those things that are necessary to maintain this Life. He adds, That as the love of Life makes him to whom this promise is made, seek for those things which are necessary to maintain it; so the Grace which God has prepared for us by his Predestination, does infallibly make us watch, pray and labour. Afterwards he enlarges upon this Passage, God would have all men to be sav'd, and is of Opinion that the true sense of it is, That God would have some Men of all Nations, Ages and Conditions sav'd, and not that he wills the Salva∣tion of every Man in particular, since he would not make himself known to such Men as would have believed in him, if he had made himself known unto them. From hence he passes to con∣sider the difference between the state of the first Man and ours. The first Man was perfectly and fully free, he had no inclination to evil, and he had the power to do good by the assistance of that Grace, which he could use or not use. But since sin entred, the liberty of Man's Will is deprav'd, and his Free-will is become a Slave to sin, and he has need of a powerful preventing Grace to deliver him from the unhappy necessity of sinning, and to render him victorious over Temptations.

Lastly, He treats of the Origine of Souls, whether they be created and put into the Body, or produc'd by other Souls. He follows and approves the Modesty of St. Austin, who treating of this Question, left it undecided. He shews what Difficulties there are to reconcile the first Opinion with the belief of Original Sin; and the second with the manner of propagating Mankind. And so without determining any thing upon the Question, he says only, That we must believe that the Soul is not a Body but a Spirit, that it is not a part of the very Substance of God, but a Creature; that it is not put into the Body as a Prison for sins that are past, but that it is put into the Body by the appointment of God to animate it, and that being united to the Flesh, it contracts Original Sin, from which it is purified by Baptism. He refutes in a few words these Errors, and those who asserted them.

St. Fulgentius wrote also a Letter in the Name of the Bishops of Afric to John and Venerius, to whom he address'd these two Books. This Letter contains the same Principles and the same Do∣ctrine about Grace and Predestination. There they observe, that God permits some Persons to ex∣alt Free-will above Grace, the better to discover the power of this Grace, which is not known when it is not received, and the great struggle that arises then, because without it no Truth can be known, neither is there any Light to discover it. After this Preface he proposes and maintains the following Propositions; 1. That Predestination is purely gratuitous, and that this Decree is not made upon foresight of Men's Merits. 2. That Infants, who die af∣ter they are baptiz'd, are sav'd by the mere Mercy of Jesus Christ, and that those who die without Baptism are condemn'd upon the account of Original Sin. 3. That those who believe this Grace is given to all, are not Catholicks in their Sentiments, since not only all men have not Faith, but there are even whole Nations who never heard of the Gospel. 4. That it may be said, that Man is sav'd by Grace, and by his Good Works, provided it be confess'd that the Grace and Mercy of God prevents the Will of Man, and works in him to will. 5. That all those whom God would have sav'd are predestin'd, be∣cause the Almighty Will of God does always take effect, his Power can never be defeated. 6. That the Free-will which was sound and entire in the first Man, is become weak by sin, but is improv'd and strengthned by Grace. 7. That the Question concerning the Origine of Souls must not be ventilated, or it must be treated of without bitterness; but that there is no doubt that Souls do contract Original Sin. They cite at the end of this Letter a passage of Pope Hormisdas in favour of St. Austin, and praise the Books of Fulgentius about Predestination and Grace, and those which he wrote against Faustus.

We have nothing now remaining, but some Fragments of the Ten Books of St. Fulgentius against a famous Arian, call'd Fabianus.

The first Book was entitled, Of the most High, the Comforter, of the Titles of Ambassador, Doctor and Judge. There he prov'd that these Titles agreed to the Father and the Son.

In the second Book he shew'd that the Functions of Sighing, Desiring and Praying, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, are not contrary to his Divinity.

In the third he prov'd that Immensity agreed to the three Divine Persons.

In the fourth, that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally adorable. He distinguish∣es the Worship of Latria from that of Dulia; the first agrees to God only, and the second may be given to Creatures. He speaks also of the Properties which belong to each Divine Person.

The fifth Book was about the Title of Image which is given to the Son of God, where he proves that he is so the Image of God as to be also of the same Nature.

In the sixth he proves that the Son is eternal as well as the Father.

The seventh establishes the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The eighth was about the Mission of the Holy Spirit.

The ninth is concerning the Invocation of the three Divine Persons; where he demonstrates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be Invocated as well as the Father; That Sacrifices are to be offer'd to the Son and Holy Spirit as to the Father, and that the like Thanksgiving is paid unto ••••m.

The tenth was about a Writing upon the Apostle's Creed; where he observes that it was so call'd, either because it is a Compact, or because it is an Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine. After this he proves that what in the Creed is attributed to the Father, agrees to the whole Trinity.

The Treatise address'd to Victor is upon the same Subject, and written at the same time. There he refutes the Discourse of a Priest nam'd Fastidiosus, who having quitted a Religious Profession and the Priestly Office to lead a licentious Life, had also abandon'd the Faith by turning Arian. St. Ful∣gentius proves in this Treatise the Divinity of the Son, and explains how it may be said, That the Word only is Incarnate.

The time is not certainly known when the Treatise of the Faith was written, which is address'd to a Lay-man call'd Peter, who having a design to make a Journey to Jerusalem, desir'd before his departure, to have an Instruction containing the Articles of Faith, that he might know what he ought to believe. St. Fulgentius explain'd to him, first, what he ought to believe concerning the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation: And then he told him that all Beings, both Spiritual and Corporeal, are the Work of God who created them; that Spiritual and Intelligent Beings were to subsist eternally by the Will of God; that the Angels being created free, and having power by the Grace of God to merit their Happiness, or else to fall from it by their sin, one part of them had perish'd, and the other part was confirm'd in the Love of God, which they could never lose any more: That the first Man, who had been created perfectly free, had fall'n into sin, and so sub∣jected all Mankind to death and sin; That God had deliver'd many of them by his Grace, by the help of which they were enabled to live well, and to obtain eternal Life; That there is no state wherein a Man can deserve well, but only during the time of this Life, but as long as a Man lives upon this Earth, there is always space for Repentance; That this Repentance is unprofitable to those that are out of the Church; That all Men shall rise one day, and those who shall die in a good state shall be happy for ever, and others shall be condemned to eternal punishment; That a Man comes to the Kingdom of Heaven by means of the Sacraments which Jesus Christ has insti∣tuted; That none can obtain Salvation without the Sacrament of Baptism, except those who shed their Blood in the Church for Jesus Christ; That he who has receiv'd Baptism out of the Church has receiv'd this Sacrament, and if he returns into the Church he ought not to be re-baptiz'd, but his Baptism will profit him nothing if he continues out of the Church, or if he lives ill after he has been receiv'd into the Church; That those who live well ought continually to do Works of Mer∣cy, to expiate those sins which even the Just commit every day; That to avoid them, the humble Servants of Jesus Christ, shun Marriage, and abstain from eating Meat and drinking Wine; Not that they think that 'tis forbidden to use Marriage, to eat Meat and drink Wine; but because they are perswaded that Virginity is to be preferr'd before Marriage, and that Abstinence restrains a Man from sin; That neither second nor third Marriages are forbidden, and that excess in the use of Marriage is a Venial sin, but to those who have made a Vow of Continence, Marriage is a great Crime. Afterwards he reduces this Doctrine to forty Heads, which he thinks are to be believ'd. There was a long Article added at the end of this Treatise, which is cut off, by the Authority of some ancient Manuscript, wherein it is not to be found; and there is so much the more reason for it, because it is plain that this Treatise was concluded before the fortieth Article; and this Chapter has no relation to the preceding.

St. Fulgentius explains also the principal Points of our Faith in the Treatise of the Trinity ad∣dress'd to Felix, who had also desir'd to be instructed, that he might be able to answer the Here∣ticks with whom he convers'd. And in the Treatise of the Incarnation to Scarilus; who had pray'd him to clear up a Question which had been propos'd at Table, Whether or no it might be said that the Father, or the Divine Nature was Incarnate. After he has gone over other Mysteries upon occasion of this Question, he handles another which was also propos'd at the same time, viz. Whether God crea∣ted all Animals: He says, 'Tis certain that God created all things; that at the time of the Creation he formed all the living Creatures which the Earth and the Water produce; and as to those which are engendred out of the Corruption of Flesh and Fruit, he made them not in the first six days Creation, but he created those things out of which they were one day to be form'd.

The Questions which were propos'd to him by Ferrandus a Deacon, are more useful and more rational. A godly Man having an Ethiopian Servant, caus'd him to be well instructed in our Re∣ligion, and put him among the number of the Catechumens; after he had continued there his time, and learn'd the Creed, he was plac'd among those who were to be baptiz'd at Easter: The ordina∣ry Exorcisms were us'd to him, he renounc'd solemnly the Devil, pronounc'd the Creed, and receiv'd the Exposition of the Lord's Prayer: When he was ready to be baptiz'd, he was seiz'd with a vio∣lent Fever, which brought his Life into danger; but Easter-day being near, his Baptism was put off to that day; and then he was carried to the Church in such a Condition, that he had no knowledge,

nor speech, nor motion, nor sense. Yet he was baptiz'd, tho he could not answer himself. A lit∣tle time after this he died, without knowing that he had receiv'd Baptism. This History gives oc∣casion to three Questions: The first is, Whether Baptism administred to an Adult Person, who neither knows any thing, nor can speak and answer himself, does put him in a state of Salvation. The second is, Whether he had been sav'd, tho he had not receiv'd Baptism. The third is, Why we do not baptize the Dead, whose Faith and Piety were well known while they liv'd.

St. Fulgentius, in answer to these Questions, proves first, That Baptism without Faith availeth no∣thing to the Adult. 2. That Children receiving the Sacrament receive the Grace of Faith. This being premis'd, he determines, That the Faith of this Slave having preceded his Baptism, there is no doubt but he received the effect of Baptism, because he had both Faith and the Sacrament, but that it would have been in vain to have had Faith without receiving the Sacrament, for then he could not be sav'd; and that it is unprofitable to baptize the dead, because the Soul cannot obtain remission of its sin after it is gone out of the Body, and the Flesh alone is not capable of sin. After these Answers, he says in general, That the Canons have justly ordain'd to baptize the sick, altho they cannot themselves give an account of their Faith, provided there be Witnesses who answer for their willingness. Lastly, He en∣quires whether a person that has been baptiz'd, and dies without receiving the Eucharist, can be sav'd; Jesus Christ having said, That he who eateth not my Flesh, and drinketh not my Blood, hath no life in him. To which he answers affirmatively, That by Baptism we become the Members of Jesus Christ, and so by this means we are partakers of his Flesh. He cites a passage out of a Sermon of St. Austin, who explains thus the words of Jesus Christ in John chap. 6. of the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood.

There is another Writing of St. Fulgentius in Answer to five Questions from the same Deacon Ferrandus: The first, to know whether the Three Persons of the Trinity can be separated. St. Fulgen∣tius answers, That they cannot; and proves that all the Attributes which agree to One, agree to the O∣thers, except the relative Properties of the Persons, which necessarily denote the Union of one with the o∣ther.

The second is to know whether it may be said, that the Divinity of Jesus Christ suffer'd or died, as it is said, That a God suffer'd, a Man died, &c. St. Fulgentius maintains that this Expression cannot be condemned; and endeavours to justifie it, by the Testimonies of St. Leo, Galasius, and St. Am∣brose.

The third Question is, Whether the Soul of Jesus Christ did perfectly know the Divinity. St. Ful∣gentius is very confus'd upon this Question, which he decides by saying, That it knew the Divinity perfectly, but not so as the Divinity knows it self; that it knows as much, but not after the same man∣ner as the Divinity it self; that the Soul of Jesus Christ knows fully the Divinity, but it is not the Di∣vinity.

The fourth Question is, Why it is said in the Prayers of the Church, That the Son reigneth with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost; which expression may make a Man think, that the Holy Spirit does not reign as the Father and the Son, but only unites them in their Reign. St. Fulgentius answers, That we pray to the Father through the Son, because the Son is the Priest and the Sacrifice, and that the Uni∣ty of the Holy Spirit denotes the Unity of Nature with the Father and the Son.

The fifth Question is, How St. Luke is to be understood when he speaks of the last Supper of Jesus Christ, that he took the Cup and gave it to his Disciples; that he took the Bread and said, This is my Body; and that afterwards taking the Cup, he said, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood: Was it the same Chalice which was given both times, or two different Chalices. St. Fulgentius answers, That according to some it was only one Chalice given but once, and that St. Luke in the first place says, by way of anticipation, that he distributed it to his Disciples. That according to others, it was one and the same Chalice given two several times. He confesses that both these senses are Catholick, but he approves the last, and finds a great many Mysteries in this double distribution of the Cup. Nevertheless the first sense is more natural, and the only true sense according to the Letter.

The last Work of St. Fulgentius is his Treatise to Reginus, who had propos'd two Questions to him. He answers the first, viz. Whether the Flesh of Jesus Christ was corruptible, or incorruptible, as some affirm'd. He answers, I say, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ was not corruptible, if by Corrupti∣on be understood Sin; but it was corruptible, if this be understood of alteration and sensible Corruption,

Death hindred St. Fulgentius from answering the second Question of Reginius. Ferrandus the Deacon took upon him to write this Answer.

The knowledge, zeal, and easie way of speaking which St. Fulgentius was Master of, will not suffer us to doubt but he wrote many Sermons; but there are but very few of those that go under his Name that are worthy of him. In the last Edition of his Works there are but ten which can be his; and also in the Preface the Sermon of St. Vincent is rejected, as being full of Allusions unwor∣thy of St. Fulgentius. Here follow the Titles of the Sermons; 1. Of the Stewards. 2. Of the two Births. 3. Of St. Stephen the first Martyr. 4. Of the Epiphany, or of the Murder of the In∣nocents, and Adoration of the Wise-men. 5. Of Charity towards God and our Neighbour. 6. Of St. Cyprian the Martyr. 7. Of the good Thief. I doubt very much whether this be St. Fulgentius's as well as the eighth upon Whitsunday. The ninth is that of St. Vincent rejected in the Preface. The tenth is upon the words of the Prophet Micah, I will teach thee, O Man, what is good. This has much of the Air of St. Fulgentius. The second upon the Purification is certainly

not his; for this Festival is later than the Age of St. Fulgentius. The other Sermons are not St. Ful∣gentius's, and therefore are justly thrown back to the end of the Book. * 1.1

These are all which we have at present of the Works of St. Fulgentius. We have lost his true Treatise against Pinta, his Conference with King Thrasimond, his Book of the Holy Spirit to Abra∣gilas, his Letter to the Catholicks of Carthage, two Treatises of Fasting and Prayer, two Letters written to Stephanias in the Name of the Bishops of Sardinia, a Letter to a Bishop, wherein he as∣serts, That Christian Meekness obliges us not to deliver up a guilty Person to a Secular Judge, the whole ten Books to Fabianus, and the seven against Faustus. The ancient Author of his Life makes mention of these Works.

The Treatise of Predestination and Grace, whatever Theophilus Raynaudus says of it, is none of St. Fulgentius's, for it has neither his Style, nor manner of Writing about Grace. The Author of this Book did not fully comprehend the subject matter of it, and had no certain Principles; some times he asserts such Doctrines as are agreeable to those of Cassianus; and some times he adheres to the Doctrine of St. Austin. In fine, he is very far from that Clearness and Copiousness which is found in the Writings of St. Fulgentius: yet this is the Work of an ancient Author.

St. Fulgentius did not only follow the Doctrine of St. Austin, but he also imitated his Style. His Words indeed are not so pure, but then he is not so much given to play with Words. He had a quick and subtil Spirit which easily comprehended things, set them in a good Light, and explain'd them copiously, which may appear unpleasant to those who read his Works. He repeats often the same things in different words, and turn the Questions a thousand different ways. He lov'd Thor∣ny and Scholastical Questions, and us'd them sometimes in Mysteries. He knew well the Holy Scriptures, and had read much the Works of the Fathers, and particularly those of St. Au∣stin.

One part of the Works of St. Fulgentius was printed at Basil in 1556, 1566, and 1587; at An∣twerp in 1574, at Collen in 1618.

F. Theophilus Raynaudus has publish'd them since enlarg'd with some Treatises. They have also been printed at Lyons with the Works of the other Fathers in 1633, and 1652, and in 1671. F. Sir∣mondus publish'd some of them in 1622, and in 1643. Camerarius in 1634, and F. Chiffletius in 1656, and in 1649. But lately all his Works were gather'd together in one Volume in quarto, printed at Paris by Desprez in 1684. They were reviewed by many Manuscripts, the differences whereof are noted in the Margin, or at the end of the Book. He that publish'd them cannot be accus'd of the common Fault which those that make Editions are guilty of, viz. that they make too long Notes, for he has made none at all throughout the whole Book. It appears also by the Preface, which is done by another Author, that he did not place the Works in that Order, which should have been observ'd in making this Edition. Nevertheless, it is exact and correct enough, and it will be easie, if the Book be printed a second time, to enrich it with some Notes, and to put the Works in a bet∣ter Order.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Eugippius.