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.

CHAP. II. (Book 2)

A Relation of the Dispute concerning GRACE and PREDESTINATION.

OF all the Questions that were Debated in the Ninth Age, there was none that was mana∣ged with more heat and noise, than this of Predestination and Grace. Gotteschalcus, a Ger∣man * 1.1 Born, was the first Broacher of it. He was brought up and Instructed in the Mo∣nastery of Augia [the Rich] or Richenou, and was Sirnamed Fulgentius. He made Profession of a Monastick Life in the Monastery of Orbez in the Diocess of Soissons, and was Ordained Priest at forty years of Age, not by his own Bishop, but by Rigboldus, Suffragan of the Church of Reims, which made his Ordination to be suspected. Hincmarus describes him to us as an ill-bred, turbu∣lent, and fickle Man, and assures us, that this was the sense which the Abbot and Monks of his own Monastery had of him. Nevertheless, they could not but say but he was an Ingenious, Stu∣dious, and Subtile Man, but very troublesome and over-reaching.

About the Year 846, he had a Mind to leave his Monastery, (Hincmarus accuses him of doing it without the leave, or consent of his Abbot) and go to Rome to visit the Holy Places there. From thence he went into Dalmatia and Pannonia, where, some say, under a pretence of Preaching the Gospel to the Infidels, he began to spread his Doctrine of Predestination. But however this was, at his return he tarried some time in Lombardy, in an Hospital Founded by Count Eberard, and had a Conference in 847 with Notingus Bishop of Vienna, concerning the Predestination of the Saints to Glory, and of the Wicked to Damnation. Notingus offended at this Opinion of Gotteschalcus, not long after being come to meet Lewis King of Germany at a Town of Switzerland, told Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who promised him to confute this Error of Gotteschalcus in Writing, by the Authorities both of H. Scriptures and Fathers, which promise he not long alter performed in a * 1.2 Treatise, which he sent with two Letters, one to Notingus, and the other to Count Eberard, both against the Error of Gotteschalcus. In his Treatise he accuses this Monk of teaching that Predesti∣nation is so made, That every Man, that is Predestinated to Life, can't be D••nm'd; and every Man Predestinated to Damnation can't be Sav'd. He chiefly opposeth this last assertion, and shews, That such a Predestination is contrary to the Goodness and Justice of God, who desires the Salva∣tion of all Men, because nothing is more Unjust than to Damn a Man who can't avoid Sin. He owns that Predestination is asserted in H. Scripture, but in this sense, That all Men being fallen by the Sin of the first Man into a State of Damnation, can't be delivered but by the Grace of Jesus Christ, who was provided, and Predestined from all Eternity. That those, who are freed from the State of Damnation, and to whom both their Original and Actual Sins are Pardoned by Baptism, are afterwards Damned for the Sins that they commit wilfully and freely; And that it is by the foresight of their Evil Will, that they have been Predestined; But that the Predestination of God, whether to Good or Evil hath no influence upon Man to necessitate him either way. That God Predestines things only, because he foresees after what manner they will happen. That he doth not Predestine Evil, but foresees it only, whereas he both foresees and Predestines Good. That out of the whole Mass of Mankind, he through meer Grace, accepts those, whom he pleaseth, to Salvation, and leaves others, yet not Ordaining them to Damnation, but for their Sins, which he foresees they will commit freely. These are the Doctrines which Rabanus lays down against Got∣teschalcus in his Treatise to Notingus, which he endeavours to prove by Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of S. Austin, Fulgentius, and Gennadius, whose Book concerning the Doctrines of the Church, he cites under the Name of S. Austin. He repeats the same thing in his Letter to Eberard, and exhorts that Lord not to suffer any contrary Doctrine to be Taught in his Dominions. [This Treatise and Letters, are Printed alone at Paris 1647. by the care of Sirmondus.]

Gotteschalcus seeing himself thus attacked by an Adversary of great Credit and Authority, resol∣ved to set himself about the Explication of his Opinion, that he might make him understand his * 1.3 true meaning, and rectify his mistake concerning him. Wherefore he went into Germany in the be∣ginning of the Year 848, and finding that the difference between himself and Rabanus might be re∣duced to three Questions, 1. Concerning the Predestination of the Wicked; 2. Concerning the Will and Death of Jesus Christ to save all Men, even Infidels themselves; and 3. Concerning Free-will, he Composed a Treatise, in which he opposes the Opinion of Rabanus under these three heads.

He reproves him for asserting, That the Reprobate are not Predestined to Damnation. He main∣tains, That God foreseeing that they would live and die in Sin, hath Predestined them to Eternal Torments. Concerning the 2d Article he says, That we must understand that Text of Scripture, God will have all Men to be saved, of those that are actually and effectually saved, because there is none that God will have to be saved but shall be saved; And that Jesus Christ hath not poured out his Blood to redeem those that are finally and eternally Reprobated, but only for the Elect. Upon the 3d Question, which concerns Free-will, he reproves Rabanus for taking up the Opinion of Gennadius, the Scholar of that unfortunate Man Cassian, instead of S. Austin's. We have not this Treatise of Gotteschalcus, but some fragments of it cited by Hincmarus. Gotteschalcus propounded these three Questions to the most able men of his time, praying them to resolve them agreeable to the Doctrine of S. Austin. He wrote particularly to Lupus Servatus, Marcaldus Abbot of Prumiers, and one Named Jonas.

In October 848, there was a Council held at Mentz, in which Gotteschalcus was accused by Raba∣nus. * 1.4 Gotteschalcus presented a Confession of his Faith, in which he declared, That he owned and believed before God, and his Saints, that there were two sorts of Predestination. The one of the Elect to Eternal Happiness, and the other of the Reprobate to Damnation, because as God hath im∣mutably Predistined the Elect before the Creation of the World through his free mercy to Life Eternal, in like manner hath he immutably Predestin'd the Reprobate for their wicked Actions to Eternal Death. This expression shews plainly, what was the state of the Question between Got∣teschalcus and Rabanus. Rabanus accuses him for believing, That God Predestined men to Damna∣tion, without any prevision of their wicked Works. Gotteschalcus in this Confession of Faith owns, That no Man is Predestined to Damnation but for his Crimes. Propter ipsorum mala Merita. Ra∣banus acknowledges, That God knows those, that are in a state of Sin, and hath decreed to punish them with Eternal Death, because of their Sins; but he will not call it Predestination to Death, lest Men should think God also Predestines them to Sin. And Gotteschalcus resolutely maintained, That there was a Predestination to Death as well as to Life. They both agreed, That Predestination to Life was free and gratuitous; That God hath chosen, whom he pleaseth, out of the Corrupt Mass of Mankind, to Salvation, and through meer Mercy, and fits them for Salvation by his Graces, and all other necessary means for that end; As also they both confess, That God deals after the same manner with the Reprobate, whom he condemns to Eternal Death only for their Sins, of which he is no manner of cause. But Rabanus would by no means allow this last Decree, Predestination to Evil, and Gotteschalcus stiffly maintained it. The Bishops of this Synod not being able to per∣swade him to change his Opinion, or way of speaking, condemned him; and knowing that he was a Monk of the Diocess of Soissons, which was subject to the Archbishop of Reims, where he was Ordain'd, they sent him to Hincmarus, to whom Rabanus wrote in these words. Ye know, that a certain Vagabond Monk named Gotteschalcus, who says that he was Ordain'd Priest in your Diocess, be∣ing come from Italy to Mentz, is found to teach a wicked and pernicious Doctrine concerning Predesti∣nation, maintaining that as there is a Predestination of God for the Good, so there is also for the Evil; and that there are many Persons in the World that can't return from their Errors, nor turn from their Sins, because of the Predestination of God, which constrains them to suffer their Death, to which they are determin'd, being in their own Nature incorrigible, and worthy of Damnation. This Man being known to maintain this Doctrine in the Council lately held at Mentz, and being found incorrigible, we have thought fit, according to the Order and Advice of our most Pious King Lewis, to send him to you, after we had condemn'd him and his pernicious Doctrine, that you may keep him within your Diocess, out of which he is gone contrary to the Canons. Do not suffer him to teach his Errors any longer, nor seduce the People; for I perceive, he hath already seduced several Persons, who are become less careful of their Salva∣tion, since he hath put this Opinion into their Minds, saying in them, Why should I labour for my Salvation? If I am Predestin'd to Damnation I can't avoid it; and on the contrary, whatever Sins I am guilty of, If I am Predestin'd to Salvation I shall be certainly saved. Thus have I, in a few words, shewed you his Doctrine, which you may better, and more fully understand, from his own Mouth, and act according as you think fit against him. [This Epistle is also Printed by Sirmondus at Paris, 1647]

Hincmarus was descended of a Noble Family in France, and brought up in the Monastery of * 1.5 S. Denys [near Paris] where he wore a Canons Habit, according to the Custom of the Monks of that Monastery. Being come from it, he was a long time at the Court of Lewis the Kind, but re∣turned again to the Monastery of S. Denys, after it was reformed by Hildum in the year 829 [then Abbot of it.] He accompanied him into Saxony, whither he was Banished, but did not abett the Faction of Lotharius with him, but, on the contrary, continued faithful to Lewis the Kind. When this Prince was restored, Hincmarus, who had a disposition very proper for such Affairs, abode at Court to serve the King and Bishops about Ecclesiastical Matters. After some time spent thus about Worldly matters, he returned again to his Retirement in the Monastery, but he staid not long there, for in May 844, he was chosen Archbishop of Reims, ten years after the Deposition of Ebbo, in whose place Fulcus was put, and presided almost 9 years in it, and was succeeded by Noto, who held the See but a year and half. He was Consecrated in a Synod of Archbishops and Bishops held at Beauvais, after he was desired by the Clergy and People of the Metropolis of Reims, with the consent of the Abbots, and Monks of his Monastery. A year after his Ordination, the Em∣peror Lotharius, who favoured Ebbo, (who was Deposed meerly because he had put Lewis the Kind

to Penance) and hated Hincmarus, whom he looked upon to be wholly for Charles the Bald, King of France, endeavoured to revoke the Sentence passed upon Ebbo, and restore him, supposing, that some did not acknowledge Hincmarus to be their Lawful Bishop of Reims. To this end he wrote to the Pope, and obtain'd a Letter from him, wherein he gave Gonbaldus, Archbishop of Rouan, Com∣mission to examine this Affair with such Bishops of the Kingdom as he should think ht to choose, who should meet at Treves, and having cited Hincmarus, examine him before the Popes Legats, who should be present. After Easter, Hincmarus went to the Council, and waited for the Popes Legats till the time appointed. After this, Gonbaldus Summoned Ebbo, who not daring to appear, left Hinc∣marus in quiet possession of the Archbishoprick of Reims. He governed that Church almost thirty years, for he Died not till Dec. 21. 882. He had a great share in all the Affairs which were trans∣acted in that time in the Church of France, and as to his own particular, had no small difficulties to extricate himself out of, in which he shewed a great deal of Wit, Diligence and Courage. Be∣ing endued with these Qualities he was pleased to meet with so good an occasion of signalizing himself by the Condemnation of Gotteschalcus; he first heard him himself, and resolved with him∣self * 1.6 to present him before the Council of Bishops, that was to meet with the Parliament appointed by Charles the Bald at Queircy, which was the Kings Palace in the Diocess of Reims. And that things might be done in the better order, he gave Rhotadus notice of it, to be present there, be∣cause he was the properest Judge of Gotteschalcus. Wenilo Archbishop of Sens was present with Hincmarus, and 11 other Bishops, among whom were Rhotadus Bishop of Soissons, two Suffragan Bishops, of whom Rigboldus, who Ordain'd Gotteschalcus, was one, and three Abbots, viz. Pascha∣sius Rathbertus Abbot of Co•…•…by, Bavo Abbot of the Monastery of Orbez, where Gotteschalcus was a Monk, and Hilduinus Abbot of Hautevilliers, Gotteschalcus having been questioned in their presence, and main∣tained the same Opinions which he had done at Mentz with the same obstinacy and incorrigibleness, casting some reflexions upon his Enemies, was condemned for an Heretick, degraded from his Priesthood, which he had received from Rigboldus Suffragan of Reims, without the knowledge of his Bishop; and moreover, for his obstinacy, was condemned, according to the Laws, Canons of the Council of Agatha, [Can. 38.] and Constitutions of S. Bennet, to be beaten with Rods, and Im∣prisoned, as the Bishops of Germany had before ordered. Hincmarus fearing that Rhotadus had not power enough to see this Sentence executed, and so he might escape, took care to shut him up in a Monastery of his Diocess. The Judgment passed against Gotteschalcus was delivered in these words.

Brother Gotteschalcus, know that thou art deprived of the Sacred Office of Priesthood, which if thou hast ever received, you have managed contrary to all Rules, and Profaned, to this day, by thy Manners, dis∣orderly Actions, and corrupt Doctrines; And that by the Judgment of the H. Spirit, of whose Grace the Priesthood is a special Gift, and by the Virtue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, thou art utterly for bidden to offieiate in any Office of it for the future. Moreover, because thou hast intermeddled with Ec∣clesiastical and Civil Affairs, contrary to the Profession and Duty of a Monk, and in contempt of the Ec∣clesiastical Laws, we do, by Virtue of our Episcopal Authority, Order and Command, that according to the Rules of the Church, thou be severely Scourged, and afterwards shut up in a close Prison; And that thou may never Teach again to infect others, we enjoyn you perpetual silence in the Name of the Eternal Word. Thus was Gotteschalcus Condemned in the presence, and with the consent of his Bishop, Abbot, him that Ordain'd him, and of those who were well affected to the Doctrine of S. Austin, which shews that he had an injury.

This Sentence, which was pronounced against him, was Executed with the utmost severity, for he was Whipped in the presence of the Emperor Charles, and the Bishops, till he cast out of his * 1.7 own Hand, into the Fire, a Book, wherein he made a Collection of such Texts of Scripture, and Testimonies of the Fathers, as proved his Opinion; after which he was kept close Prisoner in the Monastery of Hautevilliers in the Diocess of Reims. Nevertheless, Hincmarus, that he might induce him to change his Opinion, sent him a Writing, in which he explained those places of the Fathers on which he grounded it, and proved, That God indeed knows them that shall be Reprobated for their Sins, but hath Predestinated to Man to Evil; and that his prescience is not the cause of any Mans ruin. He sent him also a second Instruction, but could not remove him from it.

Hincmarus also wrote to Prudentius Bishop of Troyes, an Account of what had passed in the Judg∣ment given against him, and consulted that Bishop what he ought to do in case Gotteschalcus should * 1.8 continue obstinate, whether he should deprive him of the use of Divine Service and the Commu∣nion. What answer Prudentius gave to these Questions is not known, but about the same time Gotteschalcus composed two Confessions of Faith, one more long, in which he confesseth, That God hath not Predestinated any Man to Sin, or Evil, but to Good only, which is of two sorts, viz. The Rewards of his Favour, and the Effects of his Justice; That he hath freely Predestinated his Elect to Life Eternal, and also hath Predestined the Devils and Reprobates to Eternal Death. He grounds this Doctrine upon Consequences taken from Holy Scripture, and assertions of the Fathers, chiefly of S. Austin, Gregory, Fulgentius, and Isidore. That this Predestination is but one in it self, though it hath respect to two Objects, as Charity towards God and our Neighbour is the same Charity in two parts. To prove himself no Heretick, he brings a Definition of an Heretick out of S. Cassiodorus, viz. He is a Person, saith this Author, who either out of Ignorance, or Contempt of the Law of God, defends a new Error, or follows an old one. He affirms, That he holds no∣thing but what is agreeable to the Doctrine of H. Scripture and the Ancients; and consequently,

the Definition of an Heretick doth not touch him. He doubts not but he can prove the Truth of his Doctrine in an Ecclesiastical Assembly, if he could be so happy as to have the liberty given him, not only by his Discourses, but also by casting himself into scalding Water, Pitch, or fla∣ming Oyl, without suffering any harm. He explains himself more clearly in his shorter Confession of Faith, declaring, That God hath not Predestinated the Devils, and Wicked men; to Damna∣tion, but for their Sins, which he foresees that they will commit. [These two Confessions are Pub∣lished by Bishop Usher, in his History of Gotteschalcus. Dublin 1631. Hanov. 1662.]

Hincmarus also wrote a Treatise in defence of his Opinion, to the Monks and Recluses of his own Diocess, against the Opinion of Gotteschalcus. ‡ 1.9 Ratramnus a Monk of Corby, finding some things in it that deserved a Confutation, wrote a Letter against that Treatise. Prudentius Bishop of Troyes wrote also a Book, in which he explains his sense of the Questions of his time, and sent it with a * 1.10 Letter, which served instead of a Preface to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, and Pardulus Bishop of Laon. He attributes much to the Authority of S. Austin in these Matters, and in the body of his Book, he sets down a Collection of several passages to that purpose out of him and other Fathers. He doth not disagree from Gotteschalcus's Opinion concerning Predestination, declaring notwith∣standing, that God is not the Author of Sin, and that he Damns no body but for their Crimes, which deserve so great a punishment. He follows also the Principles of S. Austin about Grace, Free-will, and Gods Will to save all Men. This Writing was sent to Hincmarus and Pardulus, af∣ter the Council held at Paris about the end of the year 849, in which this Matter was mentioned, but not debated, or determined in a full Council; nevertheless the part, which the Bishops began then to abett, made it so famous, that Charles the Bald being at Bourges on his return from the Siege of Toulouse, would have it cleared, and gave Order to Lupus Abbot of Ferrara, and Ratramnus Monk of Corby, to write upon that Subject. Hincmarus, for his part, wrote about it toward Easter in 850, to Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz, who had engaged in this Contest. He sent him the Trea∣tise which he had written to the Monks of his Diocess against Gotteschalcus, with the Writings of some other Authors, which seemed to favour him, and among them the Book of Prudentius Bishop of Troyes. Rabanus having seen them, would not undertake to answer the Testimonies alledged by that Bishop, but collected some Texts of Scripture, and Sayings of the Fathers, about Predesti∣nation, to prove that the Word Predestination was never taken in an ill sense; That God inclines no Man to Evil; That he is not the Author of our Damnation; That he doth not in a proper sense harden the Heart of a Man, but only permits it to be hardened, either by their own sinful actions, or by the malice of the Devil. That he made not Death; That he repents not for the destruction of the Angels; That he would have all men to be saved. In the conclusion, he advises Hincmarus to hinder men from debating such sort of Questions, which may cause much scandal among the Faithful, and not to suffer Gotteschalcus either to Write or Teach. He wonders that that Monk should be allowed to Write, who is culpable both in Practice and Doctrine. He advises him to suffer him no longer to Write, or Dispute for the future, till he hath retracted, and much disap∣proves of their letting him enjoy Communion. He accuses him of Obstinacy and Pride, and looks upon him as incorrigible. He reproves him for wishing that he might pass through Vessels of scalding Water, Pitch, or flaming Oyl, and says he never heard of the like; That it was to tempt God; That he could not endure that punishment if it were Ordained for him, and therefore 'tis a great piece of presumption to wish for it, and desire it.

Nevertheless Lupus Servatus, which I do not believe to be a different Person from the Abbot of * 1.11 Ferrara, who was consulted about the Questions of the Times, 1. By Gotteschalcus; 2. By Hinc∣marus; and lastly, by Charles the Bald, made a Book to clear the three Questions which Gottes∣chalcus had propounded to the Council of Mentz, about Free-will, Predestination to Evil, and a∣bout the Death of Jesus Christ for all men; in which Treatise he lays down, and proves these Prin∣ciples and Doctrines; That God, who only is immutable, hath made Spiritual Creatures subject to change, who may do either Good or Evil. This appears in the fall of the Angels, who being Crea∣ted good, fell into Sin by the depravation of their Nature, whereas others of them adhering vo∣luntarily to God, have received this as the Reward of their Fidelity, That they can't fall from their Happiness. That Man who is compounded of a Material Body and Spiritual Soul, was crea∣ted in a State of Happiness, exempted from Death, and perfectly free; That he could do good by making use of the assistance of God's Grace, and Sin by abandoning of it, but having sinned free∣ly, he is under an unavoidable necessity of Dying, and subject to the irregular Motions of Con∣cupiscence. That the whole Nature of Man hath been corrupted by the Sin of the first Man, and all descended of him are fallen with him. That Men have some sort of freedom, but can't choose that which is good but by the assistance of the Grace of Jesus Christ. That our Liberty only inclines us to Evil and so we may ruin our selves, but no Man can save himself, or free him∣self from the power of Sin, but by the help of Jesus Christ. That they that are Damned, are so by Gods Justice; and they that are Saved, are so by his gracious Mercy, because by the Sin of the first Man, we all deserve Damnation, and that no Man could escape it, if God did not save him through pure Mercy; tho we must not inquire, Why God shews Mercy on some and not on o∣thers: That he could do so to all, but it is his good Pleasure to save some, and leave others in the Mass of Perdition: That when he says in Scripture that he will have all Men to be saved, it ought to be understood only of those that are actually saved. That the Word All is capable of excep∣tions, and may mean all sort of Men; That Predestination is gratuitous, and not upon the ac∣count

of our Merits. That it is in pursuance of this Election, that God gives his Grace to some, by which they are able and sedulous to do good, and leaves others to their corrupt wills by not assisting them. That he is not the Author of the Evil Men do, but Man ought to impute it to himself, or rather to the Devil, who leads him into it. That God foresees both good and evil, but he predestines nothing but the good, that he only suffers the evil and punisheth it; That what God hath predestined shall infallibly fall out, but that his Predestination imposeth no necessity; That no Christian ought to think himself of the number of the Reprobate, Men ought to labour to live well, that their punishment may be the less. He passes over slightly the Question about Pre∣destination to Damnation. He confesses that he meets not with that word used in that sense in Holy Scripture, and that the great Lights of the Church abhor that expression, for fear Men should think God hath made his Creatures to punish them, and that he unjustly condemns Persons, who have no power to avoid Sin or Damnation. That nevertheless, it happens, that as God hath ordained the punishments which are consequent upon the Sin of the First Man, so he hath ordained the punishment of Sinners, yet so as they themselves are the Authors of their own Damnation. That since Men agree in the Matter, they should not quarrel about the Words and Expressions, seeking to get an unprofitable Victory. Lastly, he passeth to the 3d Question concerning the Ex∣tent of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which he calls the Measure of his Blood. He ••ets down and approves of the Expressions of Scripture, which import, That Jesus Christ died for all Men, and hath redeemed all, but he says, that they ought to be understood as he hath explained them, in which it is said, He will have all Men to be saved. He adds, that it may be said as a proba∣bility, that he died for all, that are in his Church, and receive the Sacraments, whether they be in the number of the Elect, or Reprobate. He says, that some Men condemn this Opinion of Blasphemy; that he himself should be of that Judgment, and should believe that God punishes some of the Re∣probate the less for the Merits of Jesus Christ, but that the Apostle speaking of the Merits of Je∣sus Christ, that they are of no worth to those that are circumcised, it seems reasonable to believe that the Death of Jesus Christ is of no worth to those that are indeed Baptized, but relapse and die in their Sins and Infidelity; That nevertheless, that he may not render himself odious to them who hold that Jesus Christ died not only for the Good, but also for Sinners, he sets down a Passage of S. Chrysostome, which seems to favour that Opinion, and may unite all divided Minds about that Matter. Jesus Christ, saith that Excellent Bishop, by his Doctrine and Holiness died for all, not only for the faithful, but all the World, if all do not believe he hath done whatever was requisite on his part to save them. After these Remarks Lupus concludes, leaving every one to their liberty to choose what Opinion they judge truest. He confirms his Opinion, which he laid down in this Treatise, by a Collection of Passages out of S. Austin, S. Jerom, and some others of the Fathers upon these three Questions. [This Treatise of Lupus is extant, Printed by Sirmondus in Holland 1648, and 1650, and with the rest of his Works at Paris 1664.]

After Lupus had composed this Tract, he sent a Letter to Hincmarus and Pardulus, which con∣tained * 1.12 an Abridgment of his Doctrine. In i•• he says, that the truest Opinion is, that Predestina∣tion in regard to the Elect is a Preparative Grace, and in respect to the Wicked is a withdrawing of the same Grace; That all Men are born in a State of Damnation, and God takes such out of that State, as he pleaseth by his Mercy, and leaves others in it by his Justice. So that it is true that God predestines those he hardens, not by impelling them into sin, but by not keeping them from it; That this Predestination doth necessitate neither the good, or evil, because both have a freedom of will, which excludes a fatal necessity; That the Elect, who receive from God the power to will and do, do freely perform all that conduceth to their Salvation, and the Reprobate who are forsaken by God, do voluntarily, and not against their wills, those actions which deserve Eternal Punishment; That no Man is so silly, as to say, that there is a necessity, where the will hath a command, although it be assisted by the Grace of God, or left by his just Judgment. But as to Infants, who dye before they come to the use of Reason, it cannot be said that their will hath a part in their Salvation, or Damnation, because they are either saved by the Grace of Baptism, or damned by the Sin of the First Man. [This Letter is among his Epistles Printed by Massonus at Paris, 1588, and in the forementioned Edition of all his Works.]

It is easie to see, that this Author, although he was of S. Austins Judgment, yet manages his Ex∣pressions so warily, that he may offend neither side, but bring them to an Agreement, but it hap∣pened to him, as it ordinarily does to them that are Mediators for Peace, though they carry them∣selves never so wisely and cautiously, and have often Reason of their side, they are disliked by both Parties at variance. Gotteschalcus, a very rough and severe Man, blamed the mildness which Lupus Servatus had used, and the moderate Expressions which he had brought. That Man (saith he) in a Letter written to Retramnus, is so cautious and moderate, and hath so cunningly answered the 3 Questions of which he speaks in his Book, that he agrees not throughly with either Party. Hinc∣marus and Pardulus were not better satisfied, but accused him of Opinions unworthy of the Mercy and Goodness of God, which forced him to write his Letter to Charles the Bald, to explain his * 1.13 Judgment more clearly in that Dispute. It contains an Abridgment of his former Treat••se con∣cerning the Fall of all Men in Adam, concerning the Election which God is pleased to make of some; concerning Predestination and Reprobation; concerning the Assistance which God is pleased to give Men through his mere Mercy; concerning the Just desertion of the Wicked; concerning the loss of Man's free will to do good; concerning the Efficaciousness of Grace, and the Death of

Jesus Christ for all Men. Which last Article he explains more largely, for after he hath cited, som•• Passages of S. Austin to prove, that when he says, that Christ died for all Men, he ought to be understood of those only that are saved; he opposeth the saying of S. Chysostome against them, but we must observe, that he is not of his Judgment, by taking notice, that he saith with all due re∣spect to him, that he did not well understand that place of Scripture, and that he hath not proved his Opinion by any Testimony. Lastly, he rejects the Authority of Faustus, as a Bishop who was in an Error, and says, that we must keep to the Judgment of S. Austin, S. Jerom, and other Fa∣thers, commended by Pope Gelasius, and advises the Emperor to call a Councel of Learned Men about these Questions, who may Examine whether he speaks Reason, or no. [This Letter is also extant in the fore-mentioned Editions of his Works.]

At the same time Retramnus, a Monk of Corby, who had also been consulted by the Emperor * 1.14 about these famous Questions, composed a Treatise of Predestination divided into two Books. The first contains a Collection of Passages out of the Fathers, that all that is done in this World, is done by Order and Direction of God's Providence. That although he be not indeed the cause of the Crimes, and Sins of Wicked Men, yet they are also subject to the Order of Providence, and serve for the Execution of his Will. That God hath foreseen from all Eternity what shall befall the Good and Evil, the Elect and Reprobate. That the Predestination of the Saints is the Effect of his Mercy, and the number of the Elect can neither be increased, nor diminished, nor altered. That all the holy thoughts and good actions of the Saints, by which they acquire themselves happiness, are the effect of the mere Grace of God. That our Free-will is too weak to do any good, unless it be strengthned by the Grace of God, which helps us to do good. That this Grace operates in us to will and to do, and that it is necessary for the beginning of Faith and Prayer. In the Se∣cond he treats of the Predestination of Sinners, and speaks by the by of the Predestination of the Elect. He shews by the Testimonies of St. Austin, Fulgentius, and other Fathers, that God hath not predestined Sinners to sin, but to the punishment of their Sins, and Eternal Torments. He rejects the distinction of those who say, that Eternal Punishment was ordained and appointed for Sinners, but they were not predestined to it. He maintains that this Predestination did not impose a necessity of Sinning upon any Man, though those that are Elected by the mere Mercy of God, shall be infallibly saved; and those whom God leaves in the Mass of Perdition, shall be infallibly damned for their Sins which they voluntarily commit. He adds, that we ought to attribute all the good we do to God, and all the evil we do to our selves, because God never inclines us to evil, but only leaves us to the motions of our Wills. At the end of these Books Retramnus prays the Emperor not to publish them, before these Questions be fully examined and cleared, that they might know which Opinion to follow. He adds, that if this Book displeaseth the Emperor, that he would correct it, or shew him what corrections he would have made in them. [This Treatise is published by Mauginus in Collect. Script. Tom. 1. p. 29. and in Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 15. p. 442.]

The Emperor gave these two Books of Lupus and Retramnus, to Hincmarus and Pardulus to exa∣mine * 1.15 them, who opposed them to Amalarius, a Deacon of Treves, and Johannes Erigina Scotus, whom they had ordered to write upon this subject. We have not the Work of Amalarius, but only that of Joannes Scotus, which, according to the Genius of that Author, is full of Scholastick Subtleties and Distinctions. He begins with this Position, That every Question may be resolved by four ge∣neral Rules of Philosophy, viz. Division, Definition, Demonstration, and Analysis, and the rest of his Work is not less Logical, for although he cites several Passages of S. Austin, yet he chiefly proves his Assertions by Scholastical Reasons and Arguments. He rejects the double Predestination, and proves that Predestination doth not impose any necessity. He maintains, that Man is absolutely free after the Sin of Adam, and that although he cannot do good without the Grace of Jesus Christ yet he doth it without being constrained to it, or forced by the Will of God, by his own free choice. He adds, that Sin, and the Consequence of it, the Punishments with which it is rewarded, being mere Privations, are neither foreseen no•• predestined by God. That Predestination hath no place but in those things which God hath preordered in order to Eternal Happiness, and supposeth, that this Predestination ariseth from the foresight of the good use of our free-will. To prove what he had asserted, that Eternal Punishments are mere Privations, he affirms, That the Torments of the Damned are nothing but privations of Happiness, or the trouble of being deprived of it; so that according to him Material Fire is no part of the Damned's Torments. That there is no other Fire prepared for them but the fourth Element, through which the Bodies of all Men must pass, but that the Bodies of the Elect are changed into an Aetherical Nature, and are not subject to the power of Fire, whereas on the contrary the Bodies of the Wicked are changed into Air, and suffer Tor∣ments by the Fire because of their contrary qualities; and for this reason 'tis, that the Daemons, who had a Body of an Aetherial Nature, were massed with a Body of Air, that they may feel the Fire. Thus did Philosophy lead this Author to many wild and extravagant Notions and Opinions. [This Piece is put out by Maugius in his Vind. praedest. & Gratiae Tom. 1. p. 103.]

Wemlo or Ganelo, Archbishop of Sens, having read this Work, gathered out of it several Propo∣sitions, * 1.16 which he put under 19 Heads according to the number and order of the Chapters of Sco∣tus's Work, and sent them to Prudentius Bishop of Troyes, who having read them, found, as he thought, not only the Errors of Pelagius in them, but also the Impiety of the Collyridians. Where∣upon he composed a Book to confute him, in the Preface of which he accuses John Scotus of fol∣lowing of Pelagius, Caelestius, and Julian, to resist the Grace of Jesus Christ, and the Justice of

God, to deny Original Sin, and many other Blasphemous Doctrines. Yet John Scotus did not deny Original Sin, and acknowledged the necessity of Grace in his Work, but Prudentius thought he found such Principles in it, as seemed to abet the Doctrine of Pelagius. Prudentius answered John Scotus's Book Chapter by Chapter, and opposed the Judgment and Authority of the Fathers to his false Reasonings. [The 19 Heads gathered out of Scotus's Book, are Printed in Bishop Usher's History of Gotteschalcus, cap. 19.]

After he hath rejected his Method of deciding all things by the four Rules of Logick, and shew'd, that Questions of Divinity are not so to be handled, he confutes Scotus's Opinion of Predestination, Free-will, and the punishment of the Damned, and proves the contrary Opinion. He distinguishes Predestination from Prescience, and shews that Prescience extends to Sin, but not Predestination. He distinguishes Predestination into two sorts, the one by which God hath freely Predestined the Elect to Grace and Glory, the other by which he hath Destined the Wicked, whose Sins he fore-sees, to Eternal Damnation. He proves that Man, since the Fall, hath not a full Liberty and Power to do good, and that he cannot do it, not only without the Grace of Jesus Christ, but that his Grace excites, impels, and enables him to do it. He maintains, that no Man affirms that Grace wholly destroys Free-will, or that Predestination imposes any Necessity upon men, but he observes, that Free-will is nothing else but a voluntary choice, and unconstrained acting of the Mind. He, in the last place, decides the extravagant Opinions of Scotus about the Torments of the Damned, and propounds the Doctrine of the Church, and Fathers, who acknowledge, that Dam∣nation consists not only in the privation of Happiness, but Tortures of Fire. [This confutation of Scotus's Book by Prudentius is extant in Mauguinus's Vindic. Gratiae, Tom. 2. p. 191. and some parts of it are in Bishop Usher's Hist. of Gott. c. 8. & 11.]

The same Extracts of Scotus's Book being sent to the Church of Lyons, they employed one of * 1.17 their Deacons, named Florus, to write against him. This Deacon some time before delivering his Opinion concerning Predestination, said, in his Discourse, That God hath freely Predestinated the Elect to Grace and Glory, but he only foresees the Crimes and Sins of the Reprobate, and after∣wards Ordains, and Predestines them to Damnation; and concerning Free-will, that 'tis so much weakened by the Sin of the first Man, that it can do no good thing unless it be enlighten'd, and strengthned by the Grace of Jesus Christ. The same Doctrine he teaches us in his Tract against Scotus, and lays down a twofold Predestination, or rather Predestination under a twofold respect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. A gratuitous Predestination of the Elect to Grace and Glory, and a Predestination of the Repro∣bate to Damnation, for their Sins which they commit by their own Free-will; and maintains, that tho' our Free-will can choose that which is good, yet it never would choose, or do it, if it were not assisted by the Grace of Jesus Christ. And to explain this, he makes use of the comparison of a Sick Man, of whom we may say, that he may recover his health, although he hath need of Phy∣sick to restore it; or of a Dead Man, that he may be raised, but by the Divine Power. In like manner, saith he, the Free-will being Distempered, and Dead, by the Sin of the first Man, may be revived, but not by its own Virtue, but by the Grace and Power of God, who hath pity on it, which Florus understands not only of that Grace, which is necessary for actions, but of that also which is necessary to seek Conversion by Prayer, and begin to do well; Hitherto neither Pruden∣tius, nor the Church of Lyons, nor any other Author, had declared themselves for Gotteschalc••••. They contented themselves in thus treating upon the Question, without engaging on either side. Florus, who in his first Discourse thought him much to blame, seems to doubt in his answer to Scotus, where in the 4th Chapter he says, That he knows not how that unhappy Monk was Con∣demned and Imprisoned; adding, That if he was really guilty of Heresie, as he is accused, it were Just, that according to the Custom of the Church, all the Churches of the Kingdom should be acquainted with his Condemnation, and the cause why he was Condemned. [This Treatise is extant in Mauguin's Vind. Gratiae at Paris 1650, p. 575. and in the Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 8.]

Nevertheless, Amolo Archbishop of Lyons wrote a Letter to Gotteschalcus about the same time, in * 1.18 which it appears, that he thought him faulty. In the beginning of it, he gives him the Title of Most Dear Brother, (although he says, he knew him an Enemy to Brotherly Unity) because Christian Charity ought not to cease or be cooled, even towards those that are our Enemies. He tells him, that he loves him most heartily, and wishes as well to him as to himself; But he says, that having read and examined his Writings, which he had sent him by a Brother, he had disputed with himself a long time whether he should answer him, because he had been accused a long time of dangerous attempts against the Church, and had still held his Opinion, although he was condemned by the Authority of a Council for his Obstinacy; That he was afraid lest he should be thought imprudent in holding correspondence by Letters with a Person who had been condemned by his Brethren; but on the other side, he took himself obliged by Christian Charity, to answer his Request. Lastly, That being convinced by the admonition which Jesus Christ propounds in the Parable of the Sama∣ritan, that it is our Duty to comfort our Brethren in affliction, and to have such a sincere Charity towards our Brethren, as to live in Unity, and communicate one with another in all Offices and Services of Love, after he had begged God's Grace to enable him to give him necessary Comforts and Instructions, and to fit his Mind to receive them with Meekness and Humility, he looked up∣on himself to be under obligations to answer him. And first of all, he advises him to be of a peace∣able and submissive Spirit. He tells him, that he had heard with grief, that he had began to spread abroad his new Doctrines, and to raise Disputes about unprofitable Questions in Germany.

That since he had seen one of his Writings, in which he explains his Opinion at length, and en∣deavours to prove it by the Testimonies of the Fathers, and H. Scripture. And lastly, That he had lately received a Writing of his directed to the Bishops, or rather made against the Bishops who were concerned in his Condemnation. That by his Writings he perceived, that his Tenets were dangerous; so that he thought he could not do a better piece of Service, than to set down in short those Propositions that seemed contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and confute them by Scripture, and the Judgment of the Church. That he ought to keep firmly to that Doctrine, if he will be one of the Living Members of Jesus Christ. That he did not send this Work directly to him, because he was Excommunicated, but to his Metropolitan, that he being moved with com∣passion toward him, may admit him again into the Unity of the Church upon the abjuring of his Errors. After this Preface he saith, that this Proposition which he hath delivered displeaseth him. That all those that are redeemed by the Blood of Christ cannot perish; because he says, 'twill then follow, that either no Man that is Baptized can be Damned: Or, that those who are Baptized, and Regenerate by Baptism, and yet afterward perish, are not truly Baptized, or Redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ; now both are false, and contrary to the Scripture, and Faith of the Church. In the second place, he is angry that he is perswaded that the Holy, and true Sacraments of the Church, Exorcism, Baptism, Confirmation, Unction, and the Eucharist, are given to no purpose, to those that are in the number of the Reprobate, because they are not Redeemed by the Blood of Jesus Christ, without which the Sacraments are no better than useless Ceremonies. He maintains, that they do effectually work upon those that do not persevere. In the third place, he can't approve that which he holds, That Infants and Adult Persons, who are Baptized, but are not of the number of the Elect, are not true Members of the Church of Jesus Christ. In the fourth place, he doth not like his words where speaking of Predestination, he saith, That the Devils and Reprobates are Predestined to Damnation, so that none of them can be saved. He affirms, That this is an horrible Blasphemy against God, and an Impiety, that makes Sin necessary. That God, indeed, foresees the Si••s of Devils and wicked Men, without which they would be necessitated; and that he hath not Destined them to eternal punishments but upon the prevision of their Sins, which he knew they would commit freely. Fifthly, He abhors the Proposition delivered by Got∣teschalcus, that the Damned are as infallibly, and irrevocably Predestined to Damnation, as God is Infallible and Immutable; And he laughs at that which he adds, That the Bishops ought to exhort the Reprobate to Pray, that tho' their Damnation is irrevocable▪ yet their Torments may be less. Sixthly, He can't endure what he hath said, That God and his Saints rejoyce at the Eternal Con∣demnation of the Reprobates. He says, That God rejoyces in their Destruction, but not for it; That he rejoyces not in their Evil doing, but in the Exaltation of his own Justice. Lastly, He condemns his behaviour toward the Bishops, by railing at them, contemning them, and calling them, that are not of his Judgment, Hereticks and Rabanists. He chides him for being uncon∣cerned at the separation of the Church which he had suffered a long time, for exalting himself a∣gainst his Spiritual Fathers the Bishops, for submitting to no Authority, nor desiring a peaceable Decision of the Controversie in hand with humility, and for thinking himself the only Person en∣lightened and inspired by God to confirm the Truth. He exhorts, advises, and conjures him to reflect upon himself, return from his Errors to the Church, and submit himself to the Bishops; and gives him, with a Fatherly goodness, such other Counsels as were proper for him to follow. [This Epistle is Printed by Mauguin in Collect. Script. 9 Saeculi, Tom. 2. and with his other Works, at the end of Agobardus's Works put out by Balurius at Paris 1666.]

Some have pretended, that this Writing of Gotteschalcus, which Amolo confutes in this Letter, was Forged by Hincmarus, whom they accuse of this Forgery, but they have no proof of it, and the two conjectures upon which they ground the Accusation are took weak to raise any Credit up∣on, so that 'twould be a very rash thing to condemn so illustrious an Archbishop of so scandalous a Crime without better proofs, especially since we do not find any of the Favourers of Gotteschal∣cus to have laid any such thing to his Charge. It is most reasonable for us to believe, that Gottes∣chalcus composed this Writing privately, and sent it to Amolo Archbishop of Lyons, supposing that that Church would be more favourable to him, because it was of S. Austin's Judgment about Pre∣destination and Grace; but since he strain'd his Opinions to too high, and faulty a pitch, and drew hard and unwarrantable Consequences from them, 'tis no wonder that Amolo gave him such an An∣swer, which is written with all the insinuating Art possible to appease Hincmarus, and oblige this Monk to make him satisfaction. There is another small Piece, which is annexed to this Letter to Gotteschalcus, which is thought to be a fragment of the Letter written at the same time to Hincmarus, in which he treats of Grace and Predestination. In it he teaches us to believe, that 'tis Grace by which men are saved, which is not given them according to their merits, but through the pure and free Mercy of God, which moves them to good not by Necessity, but by their Will and Love. That this Grace is given to Infants in their Baptism, to Adult Persons, and all the Faithful, in all their Actions, Thoughts and Words that are good, because there is no good but is the gift of God. That his Prescience is certain, and that he foresees how all things will come to pass; so that the number of the Elect is known to him, and cannot be changed. That the Pre∣destination of the Just is of free Mercy, and is not done in consideration of their Merits, but that he hath justified and sanctified by his Grace in time, all those who have been Predestinated from all Eternity through his meer Mercy, that they may be holy and just. That Perseverance is a

Gift of God; That our Free-will is so much weakened by Sin, that it can't raise it self to the love of Truth and Justice, if it be not excited, healed and strengthned, by the Grace which frees it. He adds, That this Doctrine needs not to cast us into Despair, but gives us confidence in the Mercy of God; That that which is found in S. Austin, and some other Fathers, that God hath Predestinated the Wicked to Damnation, and eternal Death, ought not to be understood as tho' God constrained them by his Power, or Predestination, to be Sinners, and so Damned, but in this sense, That God hath Ordain'd by his just Judgment eternal punishments, for those that he fore∣saw would continue in the Mass of Perdition by the Sin of Adam, or who would make themselves subject to Damnation by their own voluntary Sins. [This fragment of Amolo's Epistle is also ex∣tant in the forementioned Edition of Agobardus.]

Hincmarus seeing Amolo thus in a manner to condemn Gotteschalcus, thought it convenient to write * 1.19 to the Church of Lyons upon that subject. Whereupon he wrote a Letter to him, giving him an account after what manner Gotteschalcus was Judged and Condemned in two Councels, and com∣prises his Doctrine under five chief Heads. 1. That God hath Predestined from all Eternity, those whom he pleaseth to the Kingdom of Heaven, or Eternal Damnation. 2. That they that are Pre∣destined to Eternal Death can't be Saved, and those that are Predestined to Eternal Glory can't be Damned. 3. That God will not have all Men to be Saved, and that the Apostles Words ought to be understood only of those that are Saved. 4. That Jesus Christ came not to save all Men; that he hath not suffered for all Men, but for those only who are saved by the Mystery of his Passion. 5. That since the Fall of Man, no Man can keep himself safe by his own Free-will from the com∣mission of Sin. Pardulus Bishop of Laon, wrote also to the Church of Lyons upon the same subject, telling them, that of those six Persons who had written upon these Questions, none of them had suf∣ficiently cleared them. Some join to these Letters one of Rabanus's written to Notingus. [Pardu∣lus's Letter is not extant to the Church of Lyons.]

When these Letters were carried to Lyons, Remigius, who succeeded Amolo in the Archbishoprick of * 1.20 Lyons, wrote, in the Name of his Church, an Answer to three Letters that were brought him. He abandons Gotteschalcus, and condemns the rashness and temerity of that unhappy Monk, but de∣fends the Opinion of S. Austin about Predestination and Grace; and after he hath produced seven Rules, and several Passages of the H. Fathers, to prove that the Prescience and Predestination of God are infallible, he concludes, that none of those whom God hath Predestined from all Eterni∣ty, to his Glory, through his free goodness, shall perish; and none of those, whom God hath Pre∣destined to Eternal Death, through his just Judgment, having foreseen their Sin, shall be saved, not that they are unavoidably Sentenced to Damnation, by the power of God, but because they deserve it by the malignity of their Will, which is unconquerable, and unchangeable. This was the sense of Remigius, upon two of the Propositions which Hincmarus reproved Gotteschalcus for. Concerning the third, which respected the Will of God to save all men, he says, that 'twas a difficult Do∣ctrine to resolve; but 'tis certain, that all are not saved, and that all that God Will shall come to pass. How then can he Will all men should be saved, when 'tis plain all men are not? He finds this difficulty resolved four ways in the Writings of the Fathers. 1. They say, that All is put in that place for all sorts of Persons. 2. For all those that are saved, because there is none saved but by him. 3. Because he inspires his Servants with desires and wishes, that all men should be saved. 4. That he will have all men to be saved, as Creator, because he hath given them a Will by which they may be saved, if they please. He saith, that this last Explication hath many difficulties at∣tending it, because God doth not expect the Will of Man to save them, but prevents them with his Grace. Yet he confesses, that according to some Fathers, it may be said, that God, as Creator, would have all Men to be saved, but at the same time, as he is Judge, he will not have them saved who dye in their Sins, either Original or Actual. So that 'tis not true, that God doth not accomplish his Will that he hath, that all Men should be saved, because of the opposition of Man's Will to his, but be∣cause he will not have it fulfilled himself, that he may punish their Sins. He adds, that these things are so obscure and intricate, that he is not willing to contend much about them, nor define them rashly, but contents himself to hold what is certain, without engaging in these fruitless Dis∣putes. Nor is he more willing to deliver his Opinion rashly about the 4th Question concerning Christ's dying for all Men, but would search diligently in the Scripture what he ought to believe. Wherefore, after he has recited several Texts which prove that Jesus Christ died for the Redemp∣tion of Men and of the World, he saith, that in the Order of Reconciliation, the first Men are the Elect, of whom none can perish. The second are the Faithful, who haue received their Baptism sincerely, and whose Sins are Pardoned by Grace, but do not persevere. The third are such as yet remain in their Infidelity, but shall soon be called through the Mercy of God. The fourth are those that will remain always in their Infidelity, and shall not receive Grace, either for a time, or in the end. He acknowledges and proves, by the Authority of the Fathers, that Jesus Christ died for the three first, but maintains, that properly speaking, he died not for the Wicked, who were Dead before his coming, without the knowledge of the true Religion, nor for Infidels, which are Born since, or shall be Born in future Ages. He adds, nevertheless, that he finds some Fathers, who assert that Jesus Christ died for those Infidels that were never Baptized, nor Converted; which expression, he says, may be Tolerated for Peace sake, though it be not exact nor true. That Men ought not to condemn one another in Questions of this nature, because there may be some things which we know not because of our ignorance. Concerning the last Proposition, he

says, that he much wondders that any Man should hold, that since the fall of Adam Men can't use their free-will to do good. He says, if they had added, Without Grace, the proposition had been Or∣thodox, but to say it in general, as supposing that Grace alone does all the good we do, is a propo∣tition which he never heard of before nor understood, and which the Hereticks themselves never yet asserted. He owns, that the Free-will may be said to be dead and perished by the Sin of the first Man, provided, it be not meant, that the Nature and Essence of the Will is not perished, but that the good which is in the will, i. e. the faculty of inclining it self to good, and that it hath need of the immediate Grace of Jesus Christ to incline it to good. Remigius Archbishop of Lyons, after he hath thus treated of the Doctrine contain'd in the Letter of Hincmarus, passes to the Judg∣ment and Person of Gottteschalcus. He finds fault, that he was first of all condemned by the Ab∣bots and Monks, which were of the Council, to undergo their Regular Discipline, and afterwards was judged by the Bishops. He says, that according to the ancient usage, since he was accused of Heresie, he ought to have been judged by the Bishops only. He complains of the Cruelty with which their Sentence was executed. And as to the Heads of his Doctrine related by Hincmarus, he says, That the first and second were agreeable to the Doctrine of the Church and Fathers; That the 3d and 4th were not to be condemned; and as to the 5th, if it were true that he asserted it in those terms, it deserves to be condemned. In fine, That he deserved to be condemned for his imprudence and troublesomeness, for his talkativeness and inconstancy; That nevertheless they ought not for all that to condemn the Truth, nor use him with so much severity and cruelty as they had done. Then he confutes what Hincmarus had said concerning the will of God to save all Men, against the Predestination of the Wicked to Damnation, and concerning Free-will. He also An∣swers the Letters of Pardulus and Rabanus. This Answer was accompanied with another small Treatise from Remigius, Entitled, A Resolution of the Question, in which he endeavours to confirm the Principle of S. Austin; That all the Generation of Mankind is corrupted by the Sin of Adam, and subject to Damnation, of whom some are chosen through mere Mercy, others left through just Judgment, the one are elected through the free Mercy of God to glory, the other predestined for their own or first Mans Sin to Damnation. [This Treatise of Remigius, with some other Tracts of his are extant in the Biblioth. Patrum, Tom. 15. and is put out by Mauguin in Collect. Script. de Praed. & Got.

This Answer not being such an one as Hincmarus expected, he endeavoured to establish his * 1.21 Doctrine another way. Wherefore meeting at Quiercy, in his return from the Council of Soissons held in 853, with several Bishops and Abbots, he propounded four Heads of Doctrine to the Em∣peror, which were published by his Authority. The I. was, That there is no other Predestination but only to Life, by which God had chosen out of the Mass of Perdition, into which all Men are fallen by the Sin of Adam, those whom he hath predestinated by his Grace to Glory. And as to those whom he hath left in the State of Damnation, he foresaw that they would perish, but he hath not predestined them to destruction, but only hath predestined the Eternal punishment which they have deserved. The II. is. That the Free-will which we have lost by the Sin of the first Man, is restored by Jesus Christ, and we have a full power to do good by the assistance of his Grace, and to do evil, being forsaken by it. The III. is, That God would have all Men without exception to be saved, although they are not all saved. That those that are saved, are so by the Grace of Christ, and those that perish are damned for their own Sins. The IV. was, That Jesus Christ hath suffered for all Men, although all Men are not redeemed by the Mystery of his Passion, which doth not happen because the Price of Redemption is not great enough, or sufficient, but because they have not Faith, or not such a Faith as is saving, i. e. a Faith which worketh by Love.

These four Articles were Signed by the Bishops and Abbots present at their Assembly, and if we * 1.22 may believe Hincmarus, were subscribed by Prudentius himself. But this Bishop repenting of what he had done, wrote to the Bishops assembled at Sens to choose a Bishop of Paris, that since he could not be present himself at that Synod, he had sent Arnoldus, a Priest, to whom he had given com∣mission to subscribe to their Election of a Bishop, provided they would sign and approve these four Articles concerning Grace. 1. That the Free-will of Man which was lost by the disobedience of Adam, is so far restored by the Grace of Jesus Christ, that we cannot do, think, or desire any good thing without it. 2. That God hath predestinated some to Eternal Life through his mere Mercy, and others through his just Judgment to Damnation. 3. That the Blood of Jesus Christ was shed for them that believe on him, and not for those that do not believe. 4. That God saves all those he will have saved, and that no Man can be saved whom he will not have saved. 'Tis not known what effect this Letter had in the Council of Sens, but is probable that it was read, but no∣thing was determined in that matter.

But the 4 Articles of Quiercy being sent to the Church of Lyons, the Archbishop examined them, * 1.23 and confuted them in a Book made on purpose, [Entituled, A Censure of the Articles of Quiercy, or a Book proving that the Truth of Scripture is to be held, and the Judgments of the Holy Fathers fol∣lowed.] In answer to the first Article, he finds fault with these Assertions; 1. That the first Man was free to do good, not mentioning the Divine assistance, without which neither he nor the An∣gels themselves can do good; 2. That they speak of the Predestination of the Elect, as if it were made upon the account of their good Works foreseen; 3. That they deny, that God hath predestinated the Wicked to Damnation. Upon the 2d Article he objects, 1. That they have spoken too succinctly and briefly about Free-will, having said nothing, but produced some Expli∣cations

of the Fathers upon that point; 2. That they had asserted, that we have utterly lost our Free-will by the Sin of the first Man, though the Fathers acknowledge, that though it be weak∣ened by that Sin, it still subsists in Man▪ but he can't use it well without the assistance of Grace. That all Men have naturally Judgment, Reason, and Understanding, by which they are able to distinguish that which is good from that which is evil, and that which is just from that which is unjust. That they also have a liberty of choosing good in some sort, but through the Law we have of Human Affairs, 'tis wholly car••ied upon the good of Society, Transactions of the World, and certain private Interests. Lastly, That in that respect we can do some good, but we can do nothing towards our Eternal Happines but by the inspiration and Motions of Grace. 3. He also reproves them in this Article for saying, that after regeneration we have liberty of doing evil, as if we had it not before Regeneration. Concerning the 3d Article, which is about the Will of God to save all Men, part of his Remarks are lost, but by what remains we may see, that he dis∣approved their asserting of it so generally, and had rejected the Fathers Explications of it. In the last Article he reproves them for saying, 1. That there is no Mans Nature that is not healed by Jesus Christ, and asserts, that Jesus Christ did not assume the Humane Nature of necessity, but of his own good will, and that for the Elect; 2. He dislikes them for holding, that there is not, ever was, nor shall be a Man for whom Christ died not. He confesses that he died for all that is Bap∣tized, and for the Righteous Men of the Old Testament, but denies, that he died for all Infidels which died before Christs Nativity, for those who never received the Faith, or Infants dying with∣out Baptism. He maintains, that Christ died for none, but for those for whom the Church prays, and mentions in their Holy Services after their Death. Lastly, He disapproves their comparison between Infidels that never received the Faith, and Christians, who though they have been Baptized, die in their Sins. [This Confutation of Remigius of the Articles of Quiercy is extant with the Trea∣tises last mentioned.]

Remigius Bishop of Lyons having thus confuted the Articles made at Quiercy by his own Writings, * 1.24 caused his Doctrine to be confirmed in a Council held at Valence, an. 855. made up of 14 Bishops of the Provinces of Lyons, Arles, and Vienna, in which the 3 Metropolitans presided, and Ebbo Bi∣shop of Grenoble was present. They made 6 Canons in this Synod concerning Grace, Free-will, and Predestination. The first forbids all Novel Expressions about such Matters, and commands Men to follow the Doctrine of the Latin Fathers. In the 2d they declare, that God hath foreseen from all Eternity all the Good which Righteous Men will do by his Grace, and all the Evil that Sinners will do by their own Malice; That the Righteous shall receive Eternal Life as a reward of their good Actions, and the Wicked be condemned justly for their Crimes to Eternal punishment. That this Prescience lays no necessity upon any Man, none being condemned but for their Original or actual Sins. In the 3d the Bishops strongly assert the Predestination of good Men to Eternal Life, and of Wicked Men to Eternal Death. Nevertheless after such a manner, as that in the choice of them that shall be saved the Mercy of God goes before their Works, but on the con∣trary in the damnation of those that perish their Crimes goes before the just Judgment of God, yet God hath predestinated no Man to sin by his own power, so that those that are predestinated are under necessity of being damned. The 4th is about the Death of Jesus Christ, concerning which they think it sufficient to say, and confess sincerely, that Jesus Christ died for all those that believe in him. They reject the 4 Canons of Quiercy as idle, vain, and false, and condemn Scotus's Treatise as a silly Book. In the 5th they assure all those that are Baptized and Regenerate, that they have a part in the Redemption of Jesus Christ, although afterward they loose the Innocency of Baptism, and are in the number of the Reprobate. Lastly, in the last they declare, that as concerning the Grace of Christ, by which Men are saved, and the Free-will of Man weakened by the Sin of Adam, but restored by the Grace of Jesus Christ, they do hold as the Holy Fathers have taught, what the Councils of Africa and Orange have decided, and what is held and maintained by the Bishops of the Apostolick See.

These Canons of the Council of Valence were presented to the Emperor Lotharius, the King of these Bishops who had made them, with the Treatise made upon that Subject by the Church of * 1.25 Lyons, and the Propositions of Scotus, that he might send them to Charles the Bald, and that he would advise him at the same time not to suffer the contrary Doctrine to be published in his Realm, but Lotharius not being to do it, Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble presented these Pieces himself to Charles the Bald, who went to him to his Palace at Verbery, an. 856. This Prince in September the same year, delivered them to Hincmarus to examine them, who composed an Answer to them. His Book was of a considerable bulk, and dedicated to Charles the Bald; it was Entitled, Of Predestination and Free-will, and divided into 3 parts. We have not the Work it self, but only the Letter written to Charles, which served for a Preface to it. In it he complains that they had con••emned his 4 Ar∣ticles without so much as reciting of them, and had put a bad construction upon them. That they would have him undertake the Defence of Scotus's Proposition, which he never saw, nor knew, and which were collected only to make Orthodox Persons odious. That they had made this noise with∣out desiring his Opinion, without advertising him of what they dislik••d, without hearing him or citing him to the Synod. He wondered that Ebbo Bishop of Grenoble, a Person so Eminent for Piety, should engage in such a Faction. He observes by the bye, as a thing extraordinary, that of all the Bishops that were at the Council of Valence, he only was named in the Head of the Council amongst the Archbishops, which looked like affectation of Greatness, though he would not call it Pride.

Lastly, That the Bishops of this Council had began the Quarrel, and laid the foundation of the Difference. He then lays down the order of his Answer; First, he tells the Emperor, that he had sent him the Writings which had been presented to him by the Council; 2. That he had joined to them several other Tracts which he had received from other places upon the same Subject, of which he approved so much only as was agreeable to his 4 Articles; That he will make a Collection of the Authorities and Passages of the Fathers. Lastly, That he will prove, that these Articles are agree∣able to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the Scriptures, which she acknowledges for ge∣nuine, and the Fathers whose Writings she allows, to which he will add the Authorities of more late Orthodox Writers, as Beda, Alcuinus, and Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury.

In the year 859 the same Bishops which were present at the Council of Valence being met in the Suburbs of Langres with the Emperor Charles, presented to him the 6 Canons under debate, but suppressed what was said in them particularly against the 4 Articles of Hincmarus; Fifteen days after they met at a Council at Savona in the Province of Toul [or Tullium], where they were also read. Hincmarus and those of his Party opposed their Reception, but Remigius Archbishop of Lyons desired, that the Decision of the Controversie might be entirely left to the next Synod, to which they would every one bring the Books of the most eminent Fathers of the Church, and out of them determine what they should follow, that they might be of one mind. This was the conclusion of this Council, but Prudentius did not rest here, but brought the Matter to Rome, send∣ing the Canons of the Council of Valence to Pope Nicolas. that he might confirm them. Prudentius says the Pope approved of them, but Hincmarus did not yield to it, and would not take notice of the Definition which he had passed upon the Question.

We do not find that this Question was afterward Examined or Judged in any Council of France, * 1.26 but Hincmarus made another Treatise of Predestination to defend his 4 Articles, and confute the Canons of the Council of Valence. This also is dedicated to Charles the Bald, containing 38 Chap∣ters. In the first he treats of the Original of the Heresie of the Predestinarians, and pretends to prove, that it began since the time of S. Austin; and to prove it, he makes use of the Testimonies not only of S. Austin, but of S. Prosper and Caelestine, by whom it appears that S. Austin's Doctrine of Grace was opposed by several, but he doth not observe, that they who opposed it then, were altogether opposite to the Error of the Predestinarians, for the Priests of Marseilles, and the other Frenchmen of whom S. Austin and Prosper speak, were so far from being Predestinarians, that they contradicted the Doctrine of S. Austin about Predestination, because it seemed too rigorous. He cites a Book falsely attributed to S. Austin, called Hyp••mnesticon; He maintains very positively that it is his, and proves it by the Letter of Faustus to Lucidus about the Recantation of that Priest, and by the Authority of the Council of Arles, which through a mistake (he says) was held by the Au∣thority of Caelestine, who was dead 44 years before that Council. In the 2d he gives the History of Gotteschalcus, whom he pretends to have revived the Error of the Predestinarians. In the 3d he rejects the Authority of Fulgentius, but he gives one bad Reason for it, when he says, that he is not much to be esteemed, because Pope Gelasius doth not reckon him among the Doctors of the Church, for Gelasius was dead 8 or 9 years before this Father wrote. In the 4th he proves him∣self conformable to the Doctrine of the Apostolick See. In the 5th, after he hath observed that Gotteschalcus and his Followers write the Authorities of the Scripture and Fathers to establish that Error imperfectly, he brings the Propositions of Gotteschalcus, Prudentius, and Retramnus, in which they acknowledge Predestination to Eternal Torments. In the 6th he begins to treat of the Canons of the Council of Valence in particular. He observes in that Chapter, that the first is taken out of Florus, a Deacon of the Church of Lyons, but his Sentence is changed and altered by him that transcribed and abridged it. In the 7th he explains the Passage of S. Paul alledged by the Com∣piler of them, in which he says there are Vessels of Wrath fitted for Destruction. He cites se∣veral places of the Fathers to explain that Text, and shew, that 'tis not God that hath fitted those Vessels for Death, but they fitted themselves for it by their Sins. In the 8th he alledges some places in Fulgentius, to shew, that God hath predestinated no Man to Death. In the 9th he cites some Passages of Isidore of Sivil, S. Austin, S. Fulgentius, and Florus, to explain those which his Adver∣saries had alledged. In the 10th he expounds several places of Scripture which they made use of. In the 11th he examines the following Canon of the Council of Valence. He finds fault, that they had laid aside the Explication of Florus, and distinguished between Predestination to Grace and Pre∣destination to Glory. In the 12th he treats of Predestination at large according to the Principles of S. Austin. He saith that God hath predestinated the Works as well as the Glory of the Elect. That he hath foreseen the Sins of the Reprobate, and knowing them, not only foresees, but prede∣stines the punishment which they shall suffer, but he affirms, that it can't be said, that he hath pre∣destinated them to Death or Damnation. So that all the difference between Hincmarus and his Ad∣versaries is in this, that these affirm, that God foreseeing the Sins which the Reprobate would vo∣luntarily commit, hath predestinated and condemned them upon the account of them to Damnation. And Hincmarus confesses, that God hath prepared and predestinated this Eternal punishment for their Crimes, but will not say that he hath predestinated them to be damned. S. Fulgentius in his Book which he wrote to Monimus, was most favourable to the Opinion which Hincmarus opposes, for which reason it is, that in the 13th Chapter he opposes some Passages of S. Prosper, and in his 14th a Passage of S. Austins cited by Fulgentius himself. In the 15th Chapter he returns to the History of the pretended Predestinarians. He says that the ancient Predestinarians had 4 Errors. The first,

That God condemns Men for the Sins which they have not committed, but would have committed had they lived. The 2d, That Baptism doth not take away Original Sin from the•• who are not of the number of the Predestinated. The 3d, That there is no difference between Prescience and Predestination. The 4th, That God hath predestinated Men to Sin and Damnation. He owns, that the Modern Predestinarians held not the first Error, that they pass the 2d, avoid the 3d, and have new molded the 4th, although they retain the substance of it, asserting, that God hath pre∣destined the Reprobate to Damnation, although he hath not predestinated them to Sin, since they can't suffer Damnation but by Sin. He confures the two former Errors in a few words. Then he undertakes to justifie his 4 Articles, by shewing that they are agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and chiefly of S. Austin, S. Fulgentius, and S. Gregory. He proves the first, which is concerning Predestination, by transcribing in the 16th Chapter several long Quotations of those Fathers. In the 17th he examines a place in the Book Entitled, Hypomnesticon, attributed to S. Au∣stin. In the 18th he proves, that the number of the Elect is certain, and determined. In the 19th he owns, that a double Predestination may in some sense be allowed, though not in that of Gottes∣chalcus and his Adherents, who affirm, that God hath predestined Sinners to Torments, as he hath the Good to Glory, but that it may be said, The Elect are predestined to Glory, and Eternal Tor∣ments are predestined for the Wicked. In the 20th he examines in what sense S. Gregory speaks of the Predestinarians in the Plural Number. In the 21th Chapter he produces several Passages of S. Austin, to justifie the sense and terms of his 2d Article of Free-will. In the 22d he shews, that what is said in that Article is conformable to the Decisions of the Councils of Africk and Orange about Grace and Free-will. In the 23d he answers the accusation brought against him, that he had affirmed, that Man had wholly lost his free-will by the fall of Adam; He aims, that Man hath a freedom of Will since Adams Sin, but his Free-will is a Slave to Sin, which leads him to the commission of Evil only, so that he can't do any good through the weakness of it without the Grace of Jesus Christ. In the 24th Chapter he treats about his 3d Article, which is about the Will of God to save all Men. He declares, that the Church of Rome, which is the first Church in the World, ought to be consulted about that point in the first place. He compares it to the ancient Jerusalem, and cites a Passage in the forged Decretal of Pope Anacletus, which says, that that Church was founded by God himself. He adds also a Citation out of Innocent's Letter to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, after which he quotes a Sentence of Caelestine, where he says, that the Prayers of the Church determine what we shall believe, Legem credendi Lex statuat supplicandi; From whence he concludes, that since the Church prays for all Men without restriction, or exception, we ought to believe, that God will have all Men to be saved without exception. But why then are not all Men saved? He says, 'tis because they will not; They that love Darkness rather than Light, Injustice than Justice, Sin than Virtue, destroy themselves; That it will not then follow, that God is not Almighty, because he knows how to dispose of their actions who will not do as he wills them. Whereupon he cites several Passages out of S. Austin and S. Gregory, but depends chiefly upon the words of S. Chrysostome. In the next Chapter he joins some Expressions taken out of the Writings attributed to S. Dionysius the Arropagite, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Chrysostome, S. Theophilus, S. Jerom, and S. Cyrill, some things also he brings out of S. Austin and S. Prosper, to whom also he adds S. Calestin, S. Leo, S. Gregory, Bede, and Cassid••re. In the following Chapter he confirms this Doctrine of the Will of God to save all Men without exception, because if God would not have all Men to be saved, some would be under a necessity of damnation. And where∣as his Adversaries objected, that the Will of God is all powerful, and therefore. if God would have all Men to be saved, they would be so. He puts the same Question to them as to the Angels, and urges them to answer it. Are those Angels which are fallen, fallen by the Will of God, or not? And since they could not deny according to their own Principle, but that God did desire their Salvation: He concludes that they must own, that Gods will hath not always its effect. He there recites several Passages of the Fathers to explain those places of Scripture where the All∣powerful will of God is spoken of. In the 27th Chapters he examines the State of the Question concerning the 4th Article, the Death of Jesus Christ for all Men. He declares, that it extends not to the Devils, for whom Jesus Christ was no Mediator, but only to Men. And whereas it was demanded of him, whether Jesus Christ died for Antichrist; He answers, that Antichrist shall be a Man, and since Jesus Christ died for all Men, he is of the number of those for whom Christ died. In the 28th Chapter he cites several Passages of the Fathers, to prove, that Jesus Christ died for those Men who are dead in their Sins, although it can't be said, that they are redeemed for Eternal Salvation. In the 29th he justifies the Expression which he had delivered, that there never was a Man whose Flesh was not assumed by Jesus Christ, and cites several places of the Fathers which approve that Expression. He then shews, that those that are Baprized receive the Faith that worketh by Love, which he had affirmed in his last Article. He adds in the following Chapter, that except two Sentences of it, the rest of that Article is taken out of S. Prosper.

Hincmarus having thus justified himself, passes his Judgment upon the Writings which were come to his hands, made upon this subject. He disapproves Sco••us's and Prudentius's Books, and says, that he will not enter into any Contest with them because he does not know their design, yet he tells us that he had observed some Expressions in them contrary to the Catholick Truth, viz. That there is a Triple Divinity; That the Sacrament of the Altar is not the true Body and Blood of Jesus

Christ, but a Memorial only of his true Body and Blood; That the Angels are Corporeal; That the Soul of Man is not in his Body; That the Tortures of Hell are nothing else but the remembrance of Sins and the reflection of a guilty Conscience; and other fruitless Questions concerning the manner how we shall see God, which arise perhaps, saith Hincmarus, from hence, that those who are busiest to move such disputes take no care to see him. He rejects the 7 Rules laid down by Prudentius. In the 3••th Chapter he shews, that those that lived before the coming of Jesus Christ are redeemed by his Death, as well as those that live after his coming. In the 32d he produces a great number of Testimonies both from the Greek and Latin Fathers, to prove, that Jesus Christ died for all Men without exception. In the next Chapter he confirms the same Doctrine by seve∣ral Reasons grounded upon the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and shews, that although Jesus Christ died for all Men, yet they are not all redeemed and saved, because they will not. In the 35th he approves the 5th Canon of the Council of Valence, propounded by his Adversaries; That Jesus Christ died for all those that are Regenerate by Baptism; But he maintains, that Gotteschalcus and the Predestinarians deny that Baptism washes away the guilt of Original Sin from those that are not predestinated, and confutes their Error.

The Bishops of the Council of Valence, after the Articles of Grace, Free-will, and Predestinati∣on, * 1.27 confuted by Hincmarus, added a Canon concerning the Ordinations of Bishops to this effect. To prevent for the future, that Ignorant Bishops, unable to discharge that great Function, and whose Lives are not sufficiently Examined, may not be put into the Sees, as they formerly have been, (to the utter ruine and overthrow of all Church Discipline•• it is decreed, That after the Death of any Bishop, they should Petition the Princes to grant the People and Clergy of that City power to make a Canonical Election of some Person of the same, or the Neighbouring Diocess, who is fit to fill the See, and if any Clerk be sent from Court to be made their Bishop, they should strictly examine and look into his Life and Doctrine and Manners before they Ordain him, and if he be found an Ignorant, Vicious, and Simoniacal Person, the Metropolitan should refuse to Or∣dain him, and going to Court represent it to the Prince. Hincmarus imagining, that this Canon was made against him, and some other Bishops who had been Ordained through the favour of the Court, takes it into Examination, and therefore, in the 36th Chapter he observes first, that this Canon makes directly against him whom he thought the Author of it, because he was Shaved and Ordained in another Church than that of which he was Bishop, evidently meaning Remigius Arch-Bishop of Lyons. Secondly, He observes, that he had left out several things which concerned the Ordination of a Bishop, as for Example, If they choose a Clergy-man of another Church, that he should not be Ordained till his Bishop hath given his Consent. Thirdly, He says, that those Men are not worthy to bear the Names of Bishops whose Ordination was such, as he describes, Ignorant, Vicious, and Simoniacal. Fourthly, He says, that in speaking so he affronts all the Bishops of France, the Metropolitans who have made such unlawful Ordinations, and the Princes who have approved them. Fifthly, He defends his own Ordination, and relates the whole History of the Deposition of Ebbo, and the Process had against him; He relates the Judgment given in favour of him against Ebbo in the Council of Soissons in 853. the Declaration of Ebbo, who acknowledged himself justly deposed, and consented another should be made Bishop in his place, approved by the Bishops met at Thionville in 835, whose Sentence was confirmed by Pope Sergius. He adds, that * 1.28 10 years after this Deposition, the Bishops of the Diocess of R••ims being Assembled at Beauvais, de∣sired him of the Prince, and he was Ordained by his Consent after he had been Canonically chosen by the Clergy and People of Reims. Hereupon he says, that he spake these things with regret, but he was obliged to it, lest any Man reading this Canon should think his Ordination contrary to the Canons and Rules of the Church. Then he opposes to this Article 12 Canons of the Church con∣cerning the Penalties to be inflicted upon such Persons as revive old Heresies that have been con∣demned; Which are, 1. When an Error hath been once condemned by the Church, it needs no further Confutation. 2 That when the Author of an Heresie is condemned, all that fall into the same Heresie are involved in the same Condemnation. 3. That the same Condemnation extends to all the Abettors of an Heresie. 4. That they that Communicate with Hereticks, ought not to be admitted to any Synod of the Orthodox. 5. That those that revive a Condemned Heresie ought to be reproved by all the Bishops by virtue of the ancient Condemnation. 6. That it is not lawful to introduce new Doctrines, nor compose new Creeds. 7. That such as acknowledge their Errors may be again received into the Church provided that we find sure tokens of their sincere Repen∣tance in their return. 8. That such Persons may never be promoted to any higher degree of the Clergy than what they are now in. 9. That if they relapse again they deprive themselves of their Dignity. 10. That those that act any thing contrary to the Definitions of Pope Caelestine ought to be Excommunicated. 11. That such Clergymen may be received, and continued in their degree of Priesthood, who having once assented to the true Faith, subscribe to Errors, provided they deliver a Recantation of their Errors in Writing. 12. That they that will not subscribe to the Truth are condemned of themselves. Hincmarus alledges a great number of Authorities of Popes, Councils and Fathers, to prove these Points of Discipline, which never were contested, in which he shews more Learning and Skill in the Canons of the Church, than Judgment or Equity. Lastly, Hinc∣marus ending this Work, adds a Conclusion divided into 6 Chapters, in which he sums up what he had before said concerning Predestination, Grace, Free-will, the Will of God to save all Men, and the Death of Jesus Christ for Infidels.

Some time after Hincmarus wrote another Treatise against Gotteschalcus upon another Subject. * 1.29 He had forbidden, that the Hymn of the Martyrs, called Sanctorum Meritis, should be sung in his Church, because at the end of it the Three Persons of the Trinity were called T••ina Deitas, think∣ing that Expression to be contrary to the manner of speaking exactly about that Mystery. Gottes∣chalcus seeking an occasion to expose and accuse him, composed a Treatise to defend this Expression, maintaining that the Trinity was Personaliter Trina, i. e. Personally Three, because each Person of the Trinity hath his perfect and entire Deity, & Naturaliter una. He justified this Expression by some Examples of like Expressions drawn out of the Fathers. Hincmarus maintained the contrary, that the Deity was the Name of the Nature not of the Persons, and that we might not say Trina Deitas, as we ordinarily do Tres Personae, because there is but one God in Three Persons. It is ap∣parent, that this dispute was only about Words and Names, which Hincmarus spins out to a great length with much Zeal in his large Treatise Entitled, De Trina Deitate, reciting several Quotations of the Fathers, and producing several Arguments, which is both tedious and needless to abridge. We understand by Hincmarus, that not only Gotteschalcus, but also Ratramnus Abbot of Corby had written in the Defence of this Expression, and that the Benedictine Monks did sing this Hymn, not leaving out Trina Deitas. But now we do not find those Words in the Hymn of the Martyrs, which seems to be changed into, Te Summa Deitas, for they are in the Prose of S. Thomas upon the Eucharist. [The Editions of Hincmarus's Works are set down at the end of the 6th Chapter fol∣lowing, to which the Reader is referred.]

The End of the Second Controversy and Chapter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The begin∣ning of the Controversie about Pre∣destination and Grace.
• * 1.2

  Rabanus's Book against Gotteschal∣cus.
• * 1.3

  Gotteschal∣cus against Rabanus.
• * 1.4

  The Counc il of Mentz a∣gainst Got∣teschalcus.
• * 1.5

  The Life of Hincmarus.
• * 1.6

  Council of Quiercy.
• * 1.7

  Gotteschal∣cus Punish∣ed and Im∣prisoned.
• * 1.8

  Two Confes∣sions of Faith made by Gotteschal∣cus.
• ‡ 1.9

  Or Ber∣tram.
• * 1.10

  The Wri∣tings of Hincmarus, Bertram and Raba∣nus, about Pred••stina∣tion.
• * 1.11

  Lupu••'s Treatise up∣on the th••••e Questions.
• * 1.12

  Lupus's Letter to Hincmarus and Pardu∣lus.
• * 1.13

  Lupus's L••tter to Charles the Bald.
• * 1.14

  Ratra•…•… or Bertra∣mus's Trea∣tise about Predestina∣tion.
• * 1.15

  Scotus's Book about Predesti∣nation.
• * 1.16

  Prudenti∣us's Wo•••• against Scotus.
• * 1.17

  Florus's W••iti••gs a∣gainst Sco∣tus.
• * 1.18

  Amalo's Letters to Got••es••hal∣eus.
• * 1.19

  Hincmarus's Letter to the Church of Lyons.
• * 1.20

  The Answer of the Church of Lyons to Hincmarus by Remigius.
• * 1.21

  The Ar∣ticles of Quiercy.
• * 1.22

  Prudenti∣us's Letter to the Council of Sens.
• * 1.23

  The 4 Ar∣ticles of Quiercy as confuted by the Church of Lyons.
• * 1.24

  The Canons of the Council of Valence a∣bout Grace.
• * 1.25

  The Rela∣tion of what followed the Council of Valence about the Contest of Grace.
• * 1.26

  Hincma∣rus's 2d Treatise of Predestina∣tion.
• * 1.27

  Hincma∣rus's Re∣marks up∣on the Constitu∣tion of the C••u••cil of Valenc•• about Ordi∣nations.
• * 1.28

  Theodo••is Villa.
• * 1.29

  Hincma∣rus's Book upon the Expression T••ina Dei∣tas.