Scotus Academicus, Tomus octavus: De Divino Gratiae Beneficio, et initium De Virtutibus Theologicis

In which everything that must be said concerning Divine Grace is illustrated by the light shed in the paragraphs that follow.

§ I. What is the proper and genuine signification of the name of grace. — Since the use of the name of grace is various and manifold, both among sacred and among profane Authors, lest anyone should at once stumble at the threshold on account of the ambiguity of the word, I judge it will not be unwelcome to disclose at the outset its various significations. — First, therefore, the name of grace signifies a certain loveliness or beauty of body, according to that saying of the last chapter of Proverbs: Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain, etc. — It is used likewise for elegance and polish of speech; thus Ecclesiastes 6: A sweet word multiplieth friends, and the gracious tongue, that is, graceful, aboundeth in a good man. Whence as many as heard Christ the Lord pouring forth oracles wondered at the words of grace that proceeded out of his mouth: hence the Royal Prophet had pronounced: Grace is poured abroad in thy lips. — The name of grace is sometimes taken for the effect of benevolence; for one is said to return into favour with another when he merits his goodwill, whence nothing is more frequent in Scripture than if I have found favour in thy eyes, etc. — It signifies also gratitude, or thanksgiving; thus 2 Kings 2, David says: I will render grace: whence that saying of Sophocles, grace begets grace: that is, every benefit freely conferred demands gratitude. But all these and other similar acceptations of grace are improper and alien to our purpose. — Therefore grace more properly signifies every gratuitous gift proceeding from God's mere good pleasure and liberality; for thus it is rightly understood how it is not rendered for merits but is wholly bestowed gratis; which is the reason why it is named grace. For the name of grace takes its origin not from this, that it makes its subject gracious, as some have said with too little accuracy, but from this, that it is given freely: as appears both from Scripture, Romans 4: To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt: where the Apostle opposes grace to debt: and still more clearly in chapter 11 of the same Epistle: And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace: and also from St. Augustine in many places everywhere, especially lib. De natura et gratia, c. 3. This, he says, grace, without which neither infants nor those of riper age can be saved, is not rendered for merits, but is given freely; wherefore it is called grace. And on Ps.: It is deservedly named grace, he says, because it is given freely. He has similar things in almost countless places, especially where he disputes against the Pelagians. To him accords St. Bernard, Sermon 2 De Resurrectione, in these words: Grace is given freely; even when it is bought, it is bought freely, according to that saying of Isaiah 55: Come, buy wine and milk without money. Hence St. Isidore of Seville on lib. 1 Reg. c. 10 observes most excellently that grace is rightly likened to milk; because, he says, milk is gratuitous in flesh, where the mother does not seek to receive, but labours to give: that mother gives freely, and grieves if there be none to receive. From all which it is evident that the name of grace, inasmuch as it is used by Theologians, signifies a good altogether gratuitous, which is bestowed apart from any debt and obligation on the part of the giver, and apart from any right on the part of the recipient. That these things may be more clearly known, it must be understood that debt (for the present) is twofold: one indeed on the side of merit, which is referred to the person whose it is to exercise meritorious works, according to that saying of the Apostle to the Romans 1: To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. The other truly is on the side of the condition of nature: thus we say it is due to man that he have reason, free will, and all other things that pertain to the integrity and condition of human nature. Now the particle freely in the definition of grace properly so called excludes both debts, namely of merit or of work, and of condition or of natural integrity. Hence it is that supernatural gifts claim for themselves more specially the ratio of grace properly so called than do natural gifts: for these latter indeed lack the former debt, since they are owed nothing by reason of merit and of work, because they do not fall under merit; yet they are not without the debt on the side of condition, because they pertain to the integrity of nature. Supernatural gifts, however, claim for themselves more specially the ratio and dignity of grace, seeing that they are owed nothing on either title, not only by reason of merit, but also by reason of condition and of natural integrity. — But that a readier and clearer plan of the things to be said may be had, I judged it congruent to append in this prelude a delineation and common distribution of divine grace itself, so that while discourse is made of some member dividing it, some knowledge of it may shine forth, until in the second Disputation they be treated more fully.

§ II. Of how many kinds is the division and distinction of grace. — Grace generically can be distinguished threefold: namely, natural, supernatural, and divine. Natural grace is the very creation of man, and also everything that follows upon his nature: for the formation of man is an altogether gratuitous gift, granted without any preceding merits of his, but out of God's sole liberty and liberality, as St. Augustine teaches excellently in many places, above all Epist. 95 ad Innocentium, where, while he condemns the opinion of Pelagius, that he acknowledged no other grace besides creation, he subjoins: Although, he says, by a reason not to be disapproved, the grace of God is said to be that whereby we were created, that we might be something, and yet not such a something as a corpse, which does not live, or a tree which does not feel — so that we might profit, which he means — but men, who both are, and live, and feel, and understand: and for so great a benefit we ought to give thanks to our Creator; wherefore deservedly even this can be called grace, because it was given not for the merits of any preceding goods, but by the gratuitous goodness of God. And a little after: But that grace whereby we were created men, although we understand it ought thus to be called, it is nevertheless a wonder if we read it so called in any legitimate Prophetic, Evangelic, or Apostolic writings. And St. Bernard subscribes, lib. De summatione: First, in Christ we were created unto the liberty of the will: Second, we are reformed through Christ in the spirit of liberty; with Christ thereafter to be consummated in the state of eternity. — Grace is called divine because it designates either the divine love itself, the fountain and origin of all the charisms whatsoever that are derived to us from God; or those divine persons sent forth by God for our salvation: by which reason the Incarnation of the divine Word is called grace: For thus God himself is the same Spirit, and therefore is called grace. — Supernatural grace is a certain eminent quality, or gratuitous gift surpassing the capacity and state of nature, granted to us by God on account of the merits of Christ the Redeemer, in order to the obtaining of salvation: in which sense grace is chiefly used in holy Scripture: thus Acts 15: But we believe that by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. And Ephesians 2: For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; that no man may glory. And to Titus 3: That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to hope of life everlasting. Wherefore St. Augustine, Epist. 19, blaming Pelagius because he admitted only natural grace, says: The Apostle commends by no means that grace whereby we were created, that we might be men; but that whereby we were justified, that we might be just men: for that is the grace through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2. — Now this supernatural grace is again distinguished twofold, namely external and internal. External grace is called the extrinsic gratuitous gift of God conducing to salvation, which regards all equally, such as the grace of law and of doctrine, or of Gospel preaching. Which grace Pelagius indeed admitted, as St. Aug. remembers in very many places, above all lib. De gratia Christi, c. 10, where he proves against the Pelagians that besides graces of this external kind another must still be admitted, namely interior: What is more manifest, he says, than that he himself, namely Pelagius, says nothing else of the grace whereby God works in us speedily what is good, than law and doctrine? etc. But we cultivate that grace, that they may sometimes confess it, whereby the future magnitude of glory is not only promised, but loved also; nor is everything that is good merely urged, but persuaded. — Internal grace is called every gift granted freely by God, and conducing to eternal salvation, which is proper to each one to whom it is conceded, and affects him inwardly. Such is that grace of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 5, when he says: The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us. And 2 Cor. 3: You are the epistle of Christ ministered by us, and written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart.

3. — Again, internal grace is divided into grace freely given and sanctifying grace. Grace freely given is that which primarily and of itself conduces not to the salvation of him in whom it is; but by it one cooperates with another, that he may be brought back to God; or it is a gift freely and without debt conferred upon man, primarily and of itself contributing to procuring the salvation of another; which definition seems to have its foundation in those words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 12: To every one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit, namely of others. Although, however, every grace is freely given, as we said in n. 2, nevertheless the name of grace freely given is restricted to signify this species of grace: First, because Christ the Lord conferring such graces upon the Apostles significantly admonishes them that they were conferred gratuitously, and that they should administer them gratuitously. For when he had said Matth. 10: Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: he subjoins: Freely have you received, freely give. Second, because it is commonly received, that the name of the genus is accommodated less to the nobler species: thus we designate the brute when we say animal: but grace freely given is less noble than sanctifying grace, because sanctifying grace joins man to God immediately; but not grace freely given; whence Christ the Lord Luke 10, when he had heard the Disciples reporting: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name, shortly after subjoins: But yet rejoice not in this, that spirits are subject unto you: but rejoice, that your names are written in heaven. Moreover nine species of grace freely given are constituted by the Apostle 1 Cor. c. 12, namely faith, the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, the grace of healings, the working of miracles, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, kinds of tongues, interpretation of speeches: the reason of which distribution we shall subjoin in Disp. 2, while we weigh each of these graces singly. — Sanctifying grace is that whereby the rational creature is made pleasing and acceptable to God, or certainly is disposed that it become such; because it is a supernatural gift granted primarily and of itself for the proper salvation of each one.

4. — Again, sanctifying grace is subdivided into habitual and actual. Habitual grace is that which is conferred after the manner of a habit, or quality permanently abiding in us, of which the effect is twofold: one indeed formal, namely to make man pleasing and acceptable to God, because by it we are formally justified and are pleasing to God: the other produced, insofar as grace itself concurs with free will as an effectual principle for eliciting meritorious acts; just as heat has two effects: the first is to make the subject hot to which it adheres: the second truly is exterior warming. Now this habitual grace seems to be signified by Christ the Lord in these words John 14: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. For the gift signified in the latter words, whereby God makes his abode in us, is permanent and stable. The same grace St. Aug. designates, Epist. 15 ad Dardanum, where he teaches that in baptized infants, however unaware they may be, the Holy Ghost dwells. And the Council of Vienna, as it is related in the Clementine De summa Trinitate, et fide Catholica, cap. unico, says that such grace is conferred on infants, according to the more probable opinion of Theologians both ancient and recent. — Actual grace is that which is granted after the manner of an act, and is a certain motion of God, whereby the rational creature is moved and aided to exercise operations above the powers of nature, such as, e. g., a certain holy inspiration, or thought in the mind, and a pious affection in the will divinely excited and infused. Of this Augustine treats chiefly against the Pelagians, above all in lib. De gratia Christi, cap. 12, where he says: This grace is wrought, not only that we may know what must be done, but also that having believed we may love what we have believed. The Council of Orange also mentions it, Canon 9, where it says: We are said to be worthy of the gift, when both we think rightly, and restrain our feet from falsehood and injustice. For as often as we do good, God works in us and with us, that we may work. It must be observed that we knowingly said this help to be necessary for operation exceeding the powers of nature; but an operation can exceed the powers of nature in three ways: First, simply and absolutely, as if by its genus, and according to its substance, that operation be of a higher order, namely supernatural, as are the acts of the Theological virtues, of faith, hope, and charity. Second, by reason only of the state corrupted by sin, not truly simply and absolutely; just as a sick man cannot bend himself to solid acts unless he be helped by someone, which he could easily accomplish if he were sound, without that aid; so also man, broken and weakened by sin, cannot accomplish many things without special help, which in the state of innocence, with no aid intervening, he would have performed. Thirdly finally, by reason of manner, or place, or time, or person, or other circumstances; for it often happens that what exceeds those powers neither of itself nor by reason of state, nevertheless exceeds them by reason of some circumstance: just as a sound man, who of himself would be sufficient and strong enough to move a certain weight, could nevertheless not move it without the help of another, either on account of the excessive mass of the weight itself, or because he was placed in an inconvenient spot. So a just man could easily fulfil some precept of the Decalogue if no necessity pressed; otherwise, however, if he is tossed by grave temptation, unless he be helped by some special aid.

5. — Again actual grace is subdivided into operating and cooperating. Operating grace, which is also called exciting, is defined by St. Aug. lib. De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 17, that whereby God works in us, beginning in us without us. But God is said to work it without us, not that we concur actively thereto in no way; for no inspiration, however sudden, can be excited in the mind, nor any motion of the will made so promptly, but that intellect and will operate. For they are vital acts, which therefore necessarily and essentially depend upon the concourse of the vital power. God therefore is said to work operating grace in us without us, because we do not concur thereto freely; for we ought to be held the operators of those acts only which are within our free power, and of which we are masters. — Cooperating grace, which is also called concomitant and aiding, is defined by the same St. Aug. in the same place, that whereby God cooperates with those who will, perfecting: or whereby God cooperates with us when we will, and thus will that we may act. Operating grace, I say, is also called exciting, because it performs the office, as it were, of him who arouses anyone from sleep; for the will, torpid with the sleep and sloth of sin, is aroused, as it were, by the cry and voice of vocation through holy inspiration. And as arousal takes place without the consent of the sleeper, so that grace is excited in us without our consent, and anticipates every operation and use of our will: which gift of grace surely is designated Apoc. 3 in these words: Behold, I stand at the gate and knock; for to stand at the gate of the human heart, and to knock through holy inspiration, belongs to God alone. Cooperating grace also is deservedly called aiding, because in that very moment in which anyone aroused from sleep and the torpor of sin freely responds to God calling, and by consent opens the door of his heart, God stretches out to him helping hands, that he may break forth into a good act: which surely is also signified in the same chapter of Apocalypse, when after the aforesaid words it is subjoined: If any man shall open to me, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, not alone, but with him. The same also is denoted Ephesians 5: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten thee: for to this grace calls and arouses us, that we may rise from sleep.

6. — Again operating or exciting grace is commonly subdivided by Theologians into sufficient and efficacious. Sufficient can be considered in two ways: either generically or specifically. Considered generically, it is called that which gives the power of acting, whether declinably or indeclinably, that is, either so that it does not always attain its effect; or so that it is always joined with the effect certainly and infallibly, in which sense efficacious grace also is reduced to sufficient. Considered specifically, and as opposed to efficacious, it can be described as that which does not always obtain its effect, or which in reality lacks, and is deprived of, the effect to which it is ordered, although it can have it. — Efficacious is that which always obtains its effect, whereby namely God moves the will indeclinably and insuperably, and which is nothing else than the help of grace: of which St. Aug. makes mention so often in lib. De corrept. et gratia. But God is said to move the will indeclinably and insuperably, not because it cannot be overcome and declined, but because it is never in fact overcome and declined; not otherwise than as some Emperor is called invincible, not because he cannot at all be conquered and overcome, but because he never has been conquered, nor is wont to be.

7. — Finally actual grace is subdivided into preventing and subsequent, which subdivision, on account of the conformity it has with the preceding, is confused with it by most Theologians: yet I judge that it differs somewhat from it; that this may be perceived, it must be known that preventing and subsequent grace can be compared in three ways, namely either to the free consent of the will, or in order to themselves mutually, or by respect to justification. In the first way preventing grace is called that which so precedes the free will of man, that it also accompanies and includes it: subsequent truly, that which follows that will. The explication of which St. Aug. remembers in many places, above all in the Enchiridion, c. 32, in these words: The good will of man is preceded by many gifts of God: but not by all: for both are read in the sacred Oracles, and his mercy hath prevented me, and his mercy shall follow me: it preventeth the unwilling, that he may will: it followeth the willing, that he may not will in vain: or preventing is called, because it runs before every consent of the will; subsequent truly, that which supposes and follows such consent, moving man to fulfil what he had purposed, giving opportunity of fulfilling it, and aiding him, when he in fact fulfils and executes it. By which reason preventing and subsequent grace coincides with exciting and aiding. In the second way preventing and subsequent grace relatively, and in order to themselves mutually, are so called, that preventing is that grace whereby we are excited to good: subsequent truly, that which follows that first grace; and in this sense every prior grace can be called preventing in order to the posterior. Thus it seems St. Aug. used both graces lib. De natura et gratia, c. 31: His mercy, he says, preventeth us; it preventeth, that we may be healed; and followeth, that being healed we may live: it preventeth, that we may be called; it followeth, that we may be glorified: it preventeth, that we may live piously — Those Theologians who explain preventing and subsequent grace respectively with respect to justification, so that preventing be called whatsoever precedes justification, that we may be healed from sin: but subsequent be held whatsoever other is conferred upon justified man, that in accepted sanctity he persevere and be promoted to eternal life. So teaches Vasquez on the first part disp. 88 c. 10. Which he proves presently by the praised testimony of St. Augustine, and also by the authority of St. Fulgentius lib. 1 Ad Monimum, c. 11, where he says: He preventeth the impious, that he may become just; he followeth the just, lest he become impious: he preventeth the cast down, that he may rise; he followeth the lifted up, lest he fall.

8. — There are also some Theologians who generically distinguish grace into the grace of God and the grace of Christ. They call it the grace of God, not because it is given by him, for thus every grace would be the grace of God; for there is none which is not conferred by God: but they wish it so called, because it is given from the pure liberality of God; not truly in respect of the merits of Christ, which they judge was the grace conferred both upon Angels and upon innocent man. Truly these things cannot be proved by us, especially since we have taught, and shall assert below, that every grace whatsoever was conferred both upon Angels and upon men solely on account of the foreseen merits of Christ. Wherefore I should judge it better said, that grace can be distributed into the grace of Christ, as Head, and as Redeemer. The first is that grace which was destined and conferred both upon Angels and upon men before sin, on account of the foreseen Incarnation of Christ to come, even if Adam had not sinned. The second truly, which is conferred upon fallen men by the benefit of the Passion and Death of Christ, which is called by very many names by St. Aug., namely the grace of liberation, lib. De corrept. et gratia, c. 11. Liberating grace, Epist. 105. the medicinal help of the Saviour, the grace of the physician, the aid of the most potent physician, etc. lib. De natura, et gratia, caps. 31. 39. 48. etc.

9. — Finally they divide the grace of Christ into grace simply so called and grace for grace; the memory of which division St. Aug. has lib. De gratia et libero arbitrio, cap. 8, where he says: If our life is good, it is nothing else than the grace of God; without doubt, also eternal life, which is rendered for good life, is the grace of God: for it is freely given, because it was freely given to him to whom it is given: but he to whom it is given is only grace; but this, which is given to him, because it is the reward of his, is grace for grace.

It helps here to append the series of all the heretics who attempted to darken with the soot of their errors the divine light of grace: and also to terrify with them all the most zealous Assertors of Catholic truth, who with their sayings and writings contended against them all their errors most sharply and gloriously, for the sake of asserting the genuine doctrine of grace. Truly, since these things have been treated most copiously already in the second Luminary, where discourse was made of the errors concerning divine predestination; lest we traverse again to nausea tracks already worn, I judge these must be passed over; as also the relation and declaration of the five states of man, namely of pure nature, of integrity, of innocence, of fallen nature, and of repaired nature: concerning which we have sufficiently treated in the fifth luminary disp. De homine. Therefore I judge only certain things should be inscribed in these preludes, which can carry light and illumination for resolving the controversies concerning divine grace: such as above all the doctrine of St. Augustine, and also the sanction of certain Councils, whose canons and decrees easily come not into everyone's hands. Be it therefore

§ III. Of how great authority in solving and resolving the controversies concerning supernatural grace must above all be held the doctrine of St. Augustine. — I judge that no Theologian is unaware that St. Aug., above all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, was the true Achilles of divine grace, and its most strenuous assertor, whose authority in resolving the controversies of faith (especially those which pertain to divine grace) has always been of the greatest weight with all the defenders of Catholic truth in whatever age after him. Which indeed becomes manifest from the illustrious encomiums wherewith his stupendous genius, heavenly doctrine, and suave eloquence are celebrated not only by the supreme Pontiffs, but by as many of the coeval or succeeding Fathers and Doctors of the Church as there were: for scarcely one will you find who does not wholly boil over into the praises of St. Augustine. — There comes forth above all Innocent the first, most holy Pontiff, who commends the doctrine of Augustine no light account, while with his Apostolic letters and sanctions he commended and approved both Synods, the Carthaginian and the Milevitan, and the Synodical epistles of each given to himself (of all which Augustine was the leader and the pen), and also his book De natura et gratia. And he adds that he abstains from writing, because it is agreed they have said everything, that nothing has been omitted by them, nothing suppressed. And responding to the peculiar letters of Augustine, he praises magnificently the Epistles sent by the Councils and written by Augustine, as lines full of faith and confirmed with the whole rigour of Catholic religion, and says their contention consists in daily consideration of the grace of God, and in the correction of those who think otherwise concerning integral faith; so that they can prove him an integral Doctor. This is also the reason why Zosimus the Pontiff approved on his own account and strengthened with his authority all the doctrinal Canons of the Carthaginian Synod, which the African Prelates had drawn from the books of Augustine to slay the Pelagian heresy, as St. Prosper testifies in the book Contra Collationem, writing that the detractors and rivals of St. Augustine were prostrated by Apostolic authority: Then, he says, the engines of these men were broken, then upon their pride did they fall with their allies and princes: when Innocent of happy memory struck the heads of the nefarious error with the apostolic sword: how greatly Pius Zosimus of blessed memory annexed to his own sentence the strength of the decrees of the African Councils, and armed the right hands of all the Prelates with the sword of Peter for the lopping off of the impious. By parity of reason this is why Coelestine the Pontiff approved the canons of all the preceding Synods excerpted from the writings of Augustine and enacted with authority, in the Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, cap. 2, wherein likewise he praised the writings of Augustine De gratia Dei with this magnificent encomium: Augustine, he says, a man of holy memory, for his life and merits we have always held in our communion; nor has even a rumour of sinister suspicion ever bespattered him: whom we have always remembered to have been formerly of such great learning, that he was held among the best Masters even by my Predecessors. Well therefore did all in common think of him, seeing that everywhere he was to all both an object of love and of honour. This same Honorius the Pontiff proved by the Epistle to Possessor Bishop of Africa, in which teaching him what the Catholic Roman Church feels and asserts concerning the grace of God and liberty of arbitrium, he writes thus: Concerning free arbitrium, and the grace of God, what the Roman, that is, the Catholic Church follows and asserts, although it may be known in many books of blessed Augustine, and especially ad Hilarium, et Properum, nevertheless express chapters are contained in the Ecclesiastical records. Now these chapters seem to be none other than those whereby the Pontiffs Sixtus III. Leo I. Felix IV. Boniface II. Gregory I. Adrian I. Urban V. Martin V. Pius II. Gregory XIII. Sixtus V. Clement VIII. Paul V. and other supreme Pontiffs were praisers and approvers of St. Augustine. One may stand for all, John II., who in the Epistle to Aricenus and other Senators brought forth this elogium concerning Augustine: St. Augustine, he says, whose doctrine according to the statutes of my Predecessors the Roman Church follows and keeps. Whence Clement VIII. not without great cause said the doctrine of Augustine had been left to the Church as it were a dowry.

The same truth the most illustrious Doctors of the Church confirm, who lived from Augustine down to us through the course of thirteen centuries: first of all the fifth century, whose beginnings Augustine himself illustrated, bore as many heralds of his praises as men illustrious in piety and doctrine. Above all St. Jerome thus magnificently extols him, in the Epistle found among the letters of Augustine 25: Proceed from virtue to virtue, thou art celebrated throughout the world; the Catholics again reverence and look up to thee as the author of the ancient faith; and — a sign of greater glory — all heretics detest thee. And Epist. 30: Whatever can be said of lofty genius drawn from the fountains of the holy Scriptures has been set down and described by thee.... But for me it is decreed to love thee, and look up to thee, to venerate, to admire: and to defend thy sayings as if they were mine. With which indeed most excellent encomia and leagues of friendship he signed, being now near death. For Eusebius of Cremona, his disciple, relates in the Epistle to Damasus Bishop of Aportunense: St. Jerome at his death saying many things worthy of record, made mention of blessed Augustine after this manner: Joy and consolation have I, that I leave behind me the admirable man Augustine Bishop of Hippo, of much learning and goodness, redeemed with all truth and perfection: on whose account I have much confidence in Christ Jesus that our faith may be sustained; write to him concerning me, pray him, that as a faithful soldier he fight, lest (which God forbid) evils come upon our nation. With like praises he heaps him St. Paulinus, in an Epistle found among the letters of Augustine, thus addressing him among other things: O truly... which things stir our inmost heart, that they cannot be consumed by the error of the envious: O lamp worthy to be placed above the candlestick of the Church, which pouring forth widely over the Catholic cities from the sevenfold flame the light of the oil of gladness, though dissipating the dense darknesses of the heretics, dost unfold in the splendour of clarion speech the light of truth out of the confusion of shadows... Thy mouth, I say, have I deservedly called the silver pipe of the eternal fountain. — Volusianus concurs in the same elogiums, in the second Epistle found among the letters of Augustine, writing: Both ignorance in other Priests is tolerated without detriment to the worship of God: but when we come to the Prelate Augustine, the law of God fails in whatever he chances to be ignorant of. — Nebridius, Epist. 71 in the same Augustine, accords with the former, writing: It pleases me to keep thy letters (O Augustine) as my eyes: for they are great, not in size, but in matters, and contain proofs of great things: those letters shall sound to me of Christ, those of Plato, those of Virgil. They shall be therefore to me sweet for hearing on account of eloquence, easy for reading on account of brevity, wholesome for understanding on account of wisdom. — Consentius, Epistola 221 ad Augustinum, thus elegantly addresses him in these elogiums: Thou admirable man, to whom our Father alone, conscious of secrets, because he holds the key of David, has granted with most serene gaze of heart to penetrate the fabric of the heavens, and with unveiled face (as it is written) to behold the glory of the Lord: insofar as he who gave thee this thought shall have given thee faculty of uttering it, declare to us some portion of the ineffable substance, and image and likeness, which with him as thy aid thou strivest to express insofar as thou art able with words: since unless thou shine forth as guide and master of so great a thing, our thought, as with bleared eyes, fears to gaze upon it, so greatly dazzled by the reflected flash of so great light. Enter therefore into that cloud of the mysteries of God most obscure, which bars our gaze: the little questions, in resolving which I know I err, who prefer to follow with faith the authority of thy sanctity rather than be depraved by the false image of a conceived reason. — Audax, Epistola 130, speaks of him excellently: Augustine, follower of justice, renewer of spiritual glory, dispenser of eternal salvation, so far is the worldly orb known of thee as noted. I desire therefore to feed upon the flowers of thy wisdom, and to be irrigated with the draughts of the living fountain. — Possidius Bishop of Calama, addressing Mandonius, celebrates a compendious but accurate praise of St. Augustine, writing: Augustine Father of Fathers, Doctor of Doctors: equal to Angels in fervour, equal to Prophets in revelation of hidden mysteries, equal to Apostles in preaching, image of the Divinity, abyss of wisdom. — St. Prosper, most zealous disciple of Augustine, in interweaving his encomiums puts forth all the force of his eloquence: now calling him, Epistola ad Ruffinum, the chief portion of the priests of the Lord and the most excellent minister of grace; sometimes he celebrates his praises more copiously, thus lib. 3 De vita contemplativa, cap. 31, writing: St. Augustine Bishop, sharp of genius, sweet of eloquence, skilled in secular literature, laborious in ecclesiastical labours, illustrious in daily disputations, composed in all his action, learned in expounding our Catholic faith and in resolving questions, circumspect in confuting heretics, cautious in explaining the canonical Scriptures. — Victor of Utica lib. 1 De persecutione Vandalorum commends the same Saint with no smaller eloquence: At what time, he says, the city of Hippo Regius was besieged, which the blessed Augustine, worthy of all praise, Bishop, author of many books, venerated: then that river of eloquence, which ran more abundantly through all the fields of the Church, was turned into bitterness of absinthium being drunk. — St. Fulgentius, devoted to Augustine before others, magnificently extols his books lib. 2 De veritate praedestinationis, cap. 12, writing thus: Let everyone read these who desires to attain eternal salvation. To him accords Cassiodorus in the book De divinis lectionibus, cap. 22, where he thus marvellously exalts the praises of Augustine: He also the most blessed Augustine, an eminent Doctor, he says, subduer of heretics, defender of the faithful, and palm of famous contests. And in the Prologue upon the Psalter he adds: Augustine, eminent master of all letters, and (a rarity in such abundance) a most cautious disputator; he runs indeed like a purest fountain, polluted by no sordid matter, but persevering in integrity of faith; he knows not how to give place to heretics whence they might defend themselves by any struggle; he is found a safe Catholic, wholly orthodox, and resplendent in the Church of the Lord with most suave brightness, ruddy with the clarity of supernal light. — St. Gregory in the register lib. 8. Epist. 37. ad Innocentium Episcopum writes thus: If you desire to be fed with more delicate pasture, read the little works of blessed Augustine, and seek not our bran in comparison with that wheat. — Isidore of Seville lib. 6 Ethymolog. says: Of our writers Origen among the Greeks in the labour of the Scriptures surpassed both Greeks and Latins in the number of his works. Finally Jerome is said to have read six thousand of his books. Yet of all these Augustine conquered them by his genius and learning. For he wrote so much that no one could avail day and night not only to write his books, but not even to read them. — It would be long to go through singly the most ardent heralds of the same St. Aug. in every age: from whom it appears that the most holy Doctor (that we also may bring something from our store to his glory) is the crown of geniuses, the goal of human intelligence, the miracle of nature, the interpreter of predestination, the tongue of truth, the thunderbolt of heretics, the club of errors, the sword of knots, the compendium of the ancient Doctors, the seed-plot of posterity, the tongue and lamp. So great was his charm that even his knowledge was a grace; whence it ought to be a wonder to no one that he applied his wisdom to the defence of grace; for grace was owed to grace.

From all these things it is clear that St. Augustine must be heard before the other Fathers and Doctors of the Church, especially in the controversies concerning divine grace; which however I would not wish you to understand as if all the dogmata of that most holy Doctor, in those books above all which he wrote concerning divine grace, were weighed with such certainty and truth that they should be received as it were oracles of faith. It is certain indeed that neither to St. Augustine nor to any other Father and Doctor of the Church should that authority be attributed to his particular assertion and private doctrine which is wont to be rendered for establishing the Catholic faith to the holy Scriptures, the oracles of Councils and supreme Pontiffs, and the consenting consensus of the Fathers. Which indeed is proved from St. Augustine himself lib. De Dono perseverantiae, cap. 21, where he plainly rejects that authority for himself, writing: I believe no one embraces all that is mine so as to follow me except in those things in which he perceives that I have not erred. For therefore now have I undertaken those books in which I took up my Opuscula to be retracted, that I might show that I myself had erred in many things. Lest anyone urge that he truly said this concerning the Opusculs previously published by himself, when he was younger and still rude in deciding controversies of faith, he subjoins: I esteem that by the mercy of God I have made progress in writing: yet not so perfectly begun; since I speak more arrogantly than truly if I now say that even in this age I have already arrived at perfection of writing without any error. Therefore he does not wish to vindicate for his writings, even those published in perfected age, that authority, that they may be suspected to be altogether void of error. — He demonstrates this same thing plainly Epist. 10 ad S. Hieronymum: To those books of Scripture alone, he says, which are now called Canonical have I learnt to render this fear and honour, that I believe most firmly that none of these authors erred in writing anything, etc. But those authors I so read, that however much they may excel in sanctity and doctrine, I do not therefore hold it certain because they themselves so felt; but because they have been able to persuade me either through those canonical authors, or by probable reason, that what they say does not shrink from truth. I judge another feeling, my Brother. I do not judge you to wish your books to be read so as if those of Prophets or Apostles: concerning whose writings it is nefarious to doubt that they lack all error. And with many things interposed: although I owe this immense servitude only to the Canonical Scriptures, whereby I follow them alone, so that I do not doubt that their Conscriptors erred in nothing in them, placed nothing fallaciously. Which he inculcates everywhere in other works, and especially lib. De Natura et gratia, c. 60. lib. 2 Contra Cresconium, c. 32. Ep. 48. lib. 2 Contra Faustinum, c. 5. I confess therefore that everyone owes it, from St. Augustine himself, that so great an authority should not be attributed to him, that from his single doctrine it suffice to establish the dogmata of faith: For thus, he says, Ep. 3: we ought to have the disputations of whatsoever Catholics and praised men as it were Canonical Scriptures, that it be not lawful for us, saving the honourificence which is owed to those men, to blame and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we find that they felt otherwise than truth holds, by divine help understood either by others or by us. Such am I in the writings of others: such do I cultivate readers of mine to be. Let them see therefore how far they stray from his opinion, who wish his books read as those of Prophets or Apostles, concerning whose writings it is nefarious to doubt that they lack all error.

This same truth is confirmed: First indeed, from St. Augustine himself, who proved by his own example that the most holy Doctors of the Church are not to be followed in all things. For lib. 6 De Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 2, speaking of St. Cyprian, he says: Wherefore rendering due reverence, and paying as much honour as I am able to the peaceful Bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian; I dare nevertheless to say, that he thought otherwise concerning the baptism of Schismatics or Heretics, when afterwards truth revealed it. And lib. 2 Contra Faustum, c. 5, concerning the writings of any others not Canonical, he says the judgment of the Reader is free, whereby he may approve what pleases: or disapprove what offends. Therefore St. Augustine does not judge that equal authority is to be held for the holy Doctors of the Church as for the very oracles of the Scriptures and Councils; and straightway indicates sufficiently that not all dogmata handed down by himself deserve omnimodal faith.

You will say. The writings of St. Augustine, especially on grace and free arbitrium, against the Pelagians, were approved by a special decree of the supreme Pontiffs and of the Church; which indeed is proved: First, from the Epistle of Hormisdas to Possessor, where he says: Concerning free arbitrium nevertheless, and the grace of God, what the Roman, that is, the Apostolic Church follows and asserts, although it can be acknowledged in various books of St. Augustine, and especially ad Hilarium, et Prosperum: nevertheless express chapters are contained in the Ecclesiastical scrinia: which if they are lacking, and you judge necessary, we will send. Second, from the Epist. of John cited in the superior Paragraph, in which he writes of St. John: whose doctrine according to the statutes of my predecessors the Roman Church follows and keeps. By which he signifies that whatever St. Augustine affirmed in the books against the Pelagians must be believed approved by the Apostolic See. — Truly, nothing whatsoever against our assertion is evinced from either of the two aforesaid testimonies; for Pontiff Hormisdas signifies nothing else but that from the works of St. Augustine it can be known what the Church feels concerning grace and free arbitrium: because certainly in them those very chapters which are contained in the Ecclesiastical scrinia are defended most sharply, and which Pontiff Coelestine interwove in his epistle, of which there will be discourse in the following. Similarly John the Pontiff by the aforesaid words intends in no way to prove the writings of St. Augustine against the Pelagians; since in that epistle there is no discourse about Pelagians, but rather about the followers of Nestorius, against whom he confirms the Catholic faith concerning the divinity and Incarnation of Christ with testimonies of Holy Scripture and the Fathers: and at the very front of it he places St. Augustine with this elogium: St. Augustine, whose doctrine according to the statutes of my predecessors the Roman Church follows and keeps, in lib. 11. De Civit. Dei he says thus: We believe, and hold, and faithfully preach, that the Father begot the Word. He subjoins also other testimonies of the same from lib. 2 Contra Maximinum, and from lib. 15 De Trinitate. Since therefore neither in this epistle is there discourse of the doctrine of St. Augustine against the Pelagians, nor is any book called forth by which he impugned them, there is no reason why thence anyone should gather specially that whatsoever is contained in the works of Augustine against the Pelagians is thus approved by the Apostolic See, that to depart even a little from them is nefarious. More probably indeed from this passage the supreme authority could specially be vindicated for the books De Civit. Dei, de Trinitate, and contra Maximum, which here are praised; which however is most alien from their mind. — Deservedly therefore Tostatus in defensorio p. 2. c. 83. admonishes « that from the general approbation of the Church « authority and strength accrue both to the works of St. Aug. and of other « Fathers, chiefly so far as to four heads: The first is, « that the Church grants expressly to all the Faithful of Christ that they « read them, and this with most honourable mention imparts not a small « splendour to their Authors. The second is, that she judges « them useful to the doctrine of faith and morals, and praises them on that account: with « which commendation readers are in a manner enticed, and invited diligently « to unroll them. The third, and principal, is, that the Ch« urch removes from the approved Opuscules suspicion of wilful heresy, « which is true heresy: for those works which are approved, although not « discussed entirely by the Church, as if single parts ought to be approved, « nevertheless are known by a certain general discussion, and it ap« pears from them how the Author of them feels catholically in all things, « not willing to dogmatize expressly and knowingly any error, etc. And that was « the cause most of all, wherefore the Church approved the works of certain Doctors: « because certainly she willed to sever those from pestilential books, which heretics « had been wont to scatter for corrupting faith or morals. The fourth is, that she gives them a certain authority which elsewhere « they had not: not indeed that which adversaries attribute to St. Augustine, but another of inferior note, consisting in this, that when someone al« leges a saying of some book approved by the Church, tacit approbation stands, « although the author himself show no cause of his saying. Hence « St. Thomas asserts, that sacred doctrine uses the authorities of the Doctors of « the Church as arguing from proper principles, but only probabiliter».

Therefore it is permitted to conclude with Vincent of Lérins, Contra haereses c. 39: What the Fathers are bound by this law to believe, that whatsoever they, either all together, or many, with one and the same sense, manifestly, frequently, perseveringly, as it were with a consentient counsel of Masters receiving, holding, handing down, have confirmed, that must be held undoubted, certain, and ratified. But whatsoever anyone, however sanctified and learned, however a Bishop, however Confessor and Martyr, shall have felt besides all, or even against all, if it be secluded among private and occult little opinions apart from the authority of the common, public, and general sentence.

§ IV. — IN WHICH THINGS ABOVE ALL THE DOCTRINE OF ST. AUGUSTINE CONCERNING GRACE HAS BEEN SO APPROVED BY THE CHURCH THAT IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO DEPART FROM IT EVEN A LITTLE? — In those chapters especially which Coelestine the Pontiff digested and approved in that famous epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, that he might vindicate St. Augustine himself from the suspicion of error in this part. For when the Massilian Presbyters were tumultuating in Gaul, and after the death of Augustine were sharply carping at his doctrine concerning grace and free arbitrium, criminating above all most invidiously that he taught that not only good works but also the beginnings of good will are to be attributed to divine grace, hence they objected that he had exceeded the necessary mode; Hilarus and Prosper could not endure that the books of the Doctor of grace be plucked at unpunished by Semi-Catholic men: but they attempted to repel their calumnies with every effort; and first indeed Prosper published certain little books, in which responding to the Capitula of the Gauls, and to the Vincentian objections, he accurately vindicated the doctrine of St. Augustine from the criminations of his rivals. But when the evil crept wider, and was not quieted by these remedies, he came with Hilarus to Rome, and together they pleaded before Coelestine the supreme Pontiff, that he both curb the audacity of the Massilians, and approve with Apostolic authority the doctrine of St. Augustine which the Roman Pontiffs hitherto had embraced. Coelestine wrote to the Bishops of Gaul, and so wrote that he signified to them, and indeed to the whole Catholic Church, what the Apostolic See sanctioned in the doctrine of Augustine concerning grace and free arbitrium: for when he had briefly touched the Massilians, that they clamoured against St. Augustine, he enumerates singly the individual chapters of his doctrine which were approved by himself and the Roman Church, and confirms them with the testimonies of the preceding Pontiffs. Moreover those Chapters are: First, that in the transgression of Adam all men lost natural possibility and innocence, and that no one can arise out of the depth of that ruin by free arbitrium unless the grace of God pitying raise him up. — Second, that no one is good of himself unless he partake of him who alone is good. — Third, that no one even renewed by the grace of baptism is fit for overcoming the snares of the devil and eradicating the concupiscences of flesh, unless he receive perseverance of good conversation by the daily help of God. — Fourthly, that no one makes good use of free arbitrium except through Christ. — Fifthly, that all studies, all works and merits of Saints must be referred to the glory and praise of God, because no one pleases him from elsewhere than from that which he himself has given. — Sixthly, that God so works in the hearts of men, and in free arbitrium itself, that holy thought, pious counsel, and every motion of good will is from God, because through him we are able to do anything good, without whom we can do nothing good. — Seventhly, that he must be anathematized who shall have said that the grace of God whereby we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord avails only for remission of sins committed, and not also for aid that they be not committed. — Eighthly, that he must be anathematized who shall have said that the grace of God through Jesus Christ aids us for this end only, that we sin not, because by it there is revealed and opened to us understanding of the commandments, that we may know what we ought to desire or avoid: but that through it there is not granted to us that what we know must be done we also love and are able to do. — Ninthly, that he must be anathematized who shall have said that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason, that what we are commanded to do through free arbitrium we can accomplish more easily through grace: as if, if grace were not given, we could not indeed easily, but nevertheless could fulfil the divine commandments without it.

From these sentences of Augustine, strengthened by the authority of the supreme Pontiffs Innocent and Zosimus, Coelestinus frames the following canon: Confirmed therefore by these Ecclesiastical rules and documents taken from divine authority, with the Lord aiding, we are so established, that of all goods of affection and works, of all studies and virtues, wherewith from the beginning of faith he is tempered, we profess God the Author: and let us not doubt that all merits in man are anticipated by his grace, whereby it comes to pass that we begin both to will and to do anything good: by which aid and gift of God free arbitrium is not taken away, but liberated, that of dark it may become lucid, of crooked right, of languishing sound, of improvident provident. And finally thus concludes shortly after: But the deeper and more difficult parts of the intervening questions, which those who resisted the heretics (Pelagians namely, and Semi-Pelagians) treated more broadly (above all St. Augustine), just as we dare not despise, so we have no necessity of constructing, because for confessing the grace of God, to whose work and dignity nothing must be subtracted, we believe sufficiently to suffice whatever according to the aforesaid Rules the writings of the Apostolic See taught us: so that we think him in no wise a Catholic who shall appear contrary to the prefixed sentences.

§ V. — HOW EAGERLY ALL HERETICS WHATSOEVER WHO EXISTED AFTER ST. AUGUSTINE ENDEAVOURED TO DEFEND THEIR ERRORS BY HIS DOCTRINE. — « That error of every kind has this, says Deschamps lib. 3. disput. 1. cap. 1, *that since it is weak of itself, and blushes with native colour, it creeps not into the light before it has associated to itself the defence of sacred « Letters, and put on as it were a mask, the name of some most holy and « most learned man. Hence the heretics vie with one another in flying to the name of St. Augustine, since of all who flourished in the nascent « or adult Church with praise of piety and doctrine there is none « who has more authority and faith with posterity ».

Long ago Jerome Torrensis noted this in the preface to the Augustinian confession. « Sectaries, he says, since they defer no honour, or « certainly a most small one, to the Fathers, and wish the same all under one name to be nothing but men, often deceitful men; one « however they always except, and honour most, him they cultivate « as a faithful master of pious doctrine, and observe: they make him next « to the Apostle Paul, and never cease attempting to join him to their party. Where a disputation on Justification occurs, « none more frequently than Augustine do they adduce in patrocinium of their party. Similarly where the question of the Eucharist and of the sacred body of Christ « is moved by Sacramentarians, Augustine is always first « and last in their mouth.» Likewise Claudius Sanctesius in repetition 9 de Eucharistia observes: it is permitted to observe the adversaries, he says, *whether destroying ours or asserting theirs, to beware with solid and certain scriptures, and « in every controversy to flee to one Augustine, as to a sacred « anchor: not because he stands for their party, but because « he wrote so much and so variously as the occasion required, that it is easy for all « heretics after him to twist something from him, and to turn away « otherwise than he said ».

That this indeed can easily be proved by the reckoning of all heretics whatsoever who existed in whatever century after St. Augustine.

First namely, the Predestinatiani attempted to cover their errors with the authority of so great a Doctor, as St. Prosper testifies in the Chronicle: The heresy of the Predestinati, he says, which is said to have drawn its beginning from the books of Augustine ill understood, began to creep abroad in these times. Baronius indeed at the year of Christ 190 num. 17: After the death of St. Augustine, he says, there bubbled up certain men, who incurred several errors from his writings ill perceived, which they attempted to defend with the name and authority of St. Augustine.

Scarcely had the heresy of the Predestinatians been crushed when another arose in the eighth century, which waged war upon the sacred images. Its chief restorer in Gaul was Claudius, Bishop of Turin. Of him Dungal thus writes in the reply published against him: He takes up Augustine, « whose subtlety of intellect and rectitude of the sense of Christ he is most far removed from, rejecting indeed nearly all others besides him alone. And after several intervening words: But he wantonly caresses and flatters St. Augustine, preferring him with singular praise, as if he recalled him as his patron. Likewise: Claudius judges that his sect can be upheld by the authority of supreme Augustine. Consistent with these are the things which Jonas, Bishop of Orleans, writes against the same heretic in book 1. De Cultu imaginum: Augustine, he says, he was accustomed to extol among the ancients with the encomiums of great praise.

The same fraud Berengarius concealed, that he might fight against the divine Sacrament of the Eucharist; for of him Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in the book De Eucharistiae Sacramento, where he thus addresses him: You exult in the words of blessed Augustine, boasting here that you have conquered and surpass; here you rejoice that you have found the firmament of your defense. Algern also, lib. 1. De Sacramento, cap. 10, often inculcates this, and especially in that chapter which begins thus: But even hence from the sentence of blessed Augustine: you are not going to eat this body which you see, the heresy was born, etc.

In the fourteenth century a new error burst forth from hell, with John Wyclif as its leader and parent; with how much insolence he claimed the name and authority of St. Augustine can easily be known from these words of Wyclif: In many extraneous and modern things I dissent, but with many ancient saints, and especially Augustine, I consent. When Thomas Waldensis recited this, Tom. 1. lib. 1. art. 2. cap. 81, he adds: Trusting in this audacious pomp, his disciples called him by a notorious and inflated name, John of Augustine.

With equal zeal and similar artifice Luther and Calvin, and their followers, strove to draw St. Augustine over to their own side, and to seek a hiding-place in his authority. For Luther wrote petulantly in the book De servo arbitrio: Augustine is entirely mine. Calvin claims Augustine for himself far more ambitiously, in many places, but especially lib. 3. Contra Pighium: I have boasted, he says, of Augustine, that he is wholly ours. And after much else: we say nothing but Augustine. And at length, as if the matter were openly demonstrated, he concludes thus: Therefore, even though Pighius may burst, he cannot extort this from us, that Augustine is ours. And lib. De aeterna Dei Praedest.: Augustine himself, he says, is so entirely ours that if a confession were to be written by me, it would abundantly suffice me to produce one woven together from his writings.

With like imprudence Melancthon, in the Apology for Luther against the Sorbonists, says: Is not Luther's sense concerning free will and grace throughout the whole matter the sentiment of all Augustine? In the same place the same rascal speaks: But if it was ever doubted in what kind of letters or affairs Lutetia was engaged, this place now declares it, in which I think it appears that in that whole Sorbonic Faculty there is no one who has ever touched Augustine. That they may be able to touch the very Scripture itself can easily be estimated, when some among the Theologians have not even seen the popular Writer Augustine. Theologians! O Sorbonne! And after a few words interjected: Grant this request of yours to yourselves, that you do not read Augustine daily, but merely glance at him: for there is no page of your error which does not convict you. And universally concerning the Lutherans and Calvinists Bartholomaeus Carnerarius affirms, lib. 1. De libero arbitrio, cap. 3: Having often experienced their great craftiness, they openly prefer Augustine before the wretched common people, as a cloak for their errors.

Wherefore the most learned Waldensis, lib. 2. cap. 31, deservedly writes: Anxious about the heretical calumniators of his books, Augustine said that word of Ecclesiastes: I have hated all my labor, wherein I labored under the sun, because his books came into the hands of fools, who frequently according to the perversity of their heart sow heresies thence. Nevertheless, that also ought to console the most holy Doctor which Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, who lived one century after him, elegantly and aptly for our subject observed: But why should we wonder at this? For Augustine could not have spoken better than the Prophets, than the Apostles, when the Frangellistae, both on account of their words similarly ill understood, and then many heretics attempt to defend their errors.

Although, therefore, the matter has here been treated only concerning the authority of St. Augustine, nevertheless he himself alone is not to be considered the only one to be heard in resolving the controversies concerning divine grace; for to resolve and solve those difficulties the celebrated treatises of all those Holy Fathers help not a little, who in the age of St. Augustine contended most strenuously against the nascent or re-nascent heresy of the Pelagians; but especially those of the SS. Jerome, Prosper, Hilary, and of all those whom in the prior volume, while treating of the expugnators of the Pelagian heresy, we have indicated and praised.

Furthermore, that an easier and clearer order of the matters to be set forth may be had by the readers, especially the junior Theologians of our Seraphic Order, chiefly for whose benefit we have undertaken this labor, we have judged it expedient to insert here the decrees of those Councils in which the Catholic doctrine concerning divine grace has been distinctly and professedly determined and asserted, whose canons especially rarely come into the hands of all. But that I may pass over the decrees of the Council of Diospolis, of which mention was made in the prior volume, I shall begin this prelude from the decrees of the Council of Carthage, which are commonly circulated under the name of the Council of Mileve.

§ VI. — DECREES OR CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE CELEBRATED IN THE YEAR OF CHRIST 418, BY WHICH THE PELAGIAN HERESY IS PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED. That Council of Carthage, in which 217 Bishops assembled, as St. Prosper narrates in his Chronicle, or 214, as he says in response 8. to the chapters of the Gauls, and also cap. 10. lib. contra Collatorem, seems to be the same as that plenary Council of all Africa of which St. Aug. makes mention in Epist. 17. ad Valentinum; and to which he perhaps alludes lib. 3. Contra Iulianum cap. 7, in these words: « Your cause « before the competent judgment of the assembled Bishops has now been concluded, « nor must anything further be transacted with us, as far as the right of examination « pertains, except that you follow with peace the sentence delivered concerning « this matter; but if you are unwilling, let yourselves be restrained from turbulent « or insidious disquietude ». In this Council certain decrees were published against the Pelagian heresy, which decrees, or chapters, seem to many learned men to be the same as those eight canons which are commonly circulated under the name of the Council of Mileve against Pelagius. But we shall prove that those decrees were published not by the Council of Mileve but by the aforesaid Council of Carthage, where we shall review these decrees.

CHAPTER I. — Against the Pelagians, who say that Adam could have died even without sin. — First, it pleased all the Bishops who were in this holy Synod to establish what has been defined in the present Council, that whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was made mortal, so that whether he sinned or did not sin he would die in body, that is, depart from the body, not by the merit of sin but by the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.

CHAPTER II. — That all are baptized truly unto the remission of sins. — Likewise it pleased that whosoever denies that little ones newly drawn from the wombs of their mothers ought to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but derive nothing from Adam of original sin, which is expiated in the laver of regeneration, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism unto the remission of sins is understood not truly but falsely, let him be anathema. Since that which the Apostle says must be understood in no other way: By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned; than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it: for on account of this rule of faith even little ones, who could not yet commit any sins in themselves, are therefore baptized truly unto the remission of sins, so that in them that be cleansed by regeneration which they contracted by generation.

CHAPTER III. — That the grace of God not only remits sins, but also helps that they be not committed. — Likewise it pleased that whosoever shall have said that the grace of God, in which we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of sins already committed, and not also for aid that they be not committed, let him be anathema. ⟦the raw OCR breaks off at "ana-" before the Caput IV heading; restored closing "nathema sit" from sense⟧

CHAPTER IV. — That through the grace of God we may know what we ought to do, and love to do it. — Likewise, whoever shall say that the same grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord, helps us toward not sinning for this reason only, because through it there is revealed and opened to us an understanding of the commandments, so that we may know what we ought to desire and what to avoid; but that it is not bestowed upon us so that, having known what must be done, we may also love to do it and be able to do it; let him cite the Apostle: Knowledge inflates, but charity edifies: it is most impious for us to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which inflates, but not for that which edifies; since it is a gift of God both to know what we ought to do, and to love to do it; so that, with charity building up, knowledge cannot inflate. And just as concerning God it is written, Ps. 63. Who teacheth man knowledge, so also it is written, John 4. Charity is of God.

CHAPTER V. — That the grace of God makes it possible for the law to be fulfilled, not easily without grace (as Pelagius says), as if what cannot be fulfilled more difficultly without the grace of God could be fulfilled more easily by grace. — Likewise it has pleased that whoever shall say that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason, that what we are commanded to do by free will we may be able to fulfill more easily by grace, as though even if grace were not given, we could indeed not easily, yet still could fulfill the divine commandments even without it, let him be anathema: for the Lord was speaking of the fruits of the commandments when He did not say: without me you can act with more difficulty; but said: John 13. Without me you can do nothing.

CHAPTER VI. — That according to the teaching of John the Evangelist no one exists who can be without sin. — Likewise it has pleased that where St. John the Apostle says in his first Epistle: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, whoever shall think this is to be understood so as to claim that we ought to say we have sin on account of humility, not because it is true, let him be anathema. For the Apostle continues, and adds in the same place: But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, who forgives us our sins, and cleanses us from all iniquity. Wherein it is abundantly clear that this is said not only humbly, but also truthfully: for the Apostle could have said: if we say that we have no sin, we exalt ourselves, and humility is not in us; but when he says: We deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, he sufficiently shows that whoever declares himself to have no sin speaks not the truth, but falsehood.

CHAPTER VII. — That it behooves everyone, even the Just, to say: Forgive us our debts. — Likewise it has pleased that whoever shall say that in the Lord's Prayer the Saints say the same words, Forgive us our debts, not on their own behalf, because this petition is already unnecessary for them, but on behalf of others who are sinners among his people; and therefore that it is not lawful for any one of the Saints to say: Forgive me my debts, but rather, Forgive us our debts, so that the Just is understood to ask this for others rather than for himself, let him be anathema. For the Apostle James was holy and just when he said: For in many things we all offend. For why was the word added, all, unless that this saying might agree also with the Psalm, wherein it is read: Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight no man living shall be justified? And in the prayer of the wisest Solomon: There is no man who sinneth not. And in the book of Job, chap. 37: He sealeth in the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity? Whence also Daniel, holy and just, when in prayer he spoke in the plural, saying, We have sinned, we have committed iniquities, etc., which he there confesses truthfully and humbly, lest it be thought, as some hold, that he had spoken these words not of his own sins, but rather of those of his people, afterwards said: While I was praying, and confessing my sins, and the sins of my people to the Lord our God. He did not wish to say our sins, but said both the sins of his people and his own, because as a Prophet he foresaw those who would understand these words so badly.

CHAPTER VIII. — That the Saints truly say: Forgive us our debts. Likewise it has pleased that whosoever would will the very words of the Lord's Prayer, wherein we say, Forgive us our debts, to be spoken by the Saints in such wise that they are said humbly, but not truthfully, let him be anathema. For who could bear a suppliant who lies not to men, but to the Lord Himself, who says with his lips that he wishes his debts forgiven, and says in his heart that they are not forgiven him, because he has no debts?

There are besides fourteen other Canons published for establishing ecclesiastical discipline, about all of which there is no small controversy among Authors.

You will object: « when did they issue from the African Council? » — I answer. Baronius, at Ann. 416, judges that only the eight Canones received above are prior ones of the second Council of Milevum; but that the rest belong to various African Councils; so much so that you may see one body compacted from diverse members, whose head, feet, and remaining members are joined together out of diverse members. But I judge it more probable that the aforementioned Canons were published by the plenary Council of Carthage; and that this controversy may be settled according to our measure, it must be known that four Synods were held in Africa concerning the errors of Pelagius and Coelestius: namely two under Innocent the first, Roman Pontiff, the Viberitan and the Carthaginian, both Provincial: and another two under his successor Zosimus, the first indeed a Carthaginian one in the Year 417, to which were present the Bishops of the Province of Byzacena, whose metropolis was Carthage; then the other, fuller, of two hundred and seventeen Bishops, begun in the Year 418, and not concluded until after Pelagius and Coelestius had been condemned by Zosimus; Augustine makes mention of these Synods, Epist. 17, in these words: What was written to Innocent, Pope of the Roman city, by the Council of the Carthaginian Province, and by the Council of Numidia: and somewhat more diligently by five Bishops, and what he wrote in reply to the Africans. Also what was written to Pope Zosimus concerning the African Council, and his rescript sent to all the Bishops of the whole world: and what we briefly established in the later plenary Council of all Africa against that same error.

NOTE FURTHER that two Councils were celebrated at Viberi in Numidia. One indeed in the year 402, at the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent, under Arcadius and Honorius Augusti II. Consuls: the other in the year 411, in the last year of the life of Innocent, under Theodosius and Honorius, sons of Arcadius, Consuls, at which time likewise was being celebrated the Provincial Synod of Carthage, to which alone had come the Bishops of the Proconsular Province, or even a few Bishops of neighboring Provinces. Moreover Baronius holds that the aforementioned collection of Canons should be divided into three parts, and assigns the first, that is, to the interpretation given by the first Council of Milevum, the second, containing the eight anathematisms against the heresy of Pelagius, to the second Council of Milevum: the third, embracing all the rest, he attributes to various African Councils. In the ancient collection of Councils, however, the aforementioned Canons were assigned to the first Council of Milevum. — Yet whoever imposed upon this collection the name of the Council of Milevum had neither knowledge nor account of the facts, nor of the persons, nor of other circumstances. First because the first Council of Milevum was held in the year of Christ 402, at the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent: at which time far from having arisen was the heresy of Pelagius, which began only to be spread abroad and propagated around the year 413, as St. Prosper observes in his Chronicle at that year: In this age (he says) Pelagius the Briton exercised the doctrine of his name against the grace of Christ, with Coelestinus and Julianus as helpers, and drew many into his error. And well did he say this of that year, because in the previous year, as Baronius proves by the best reasoning at the year of Christ 412, Coelestius, disciple of Pelagius, arraigned by Paulinus the Deacon concerning the heads of the Pelagian heresy, had been condemned by synodal sentence at Carthage. Therefore the Pelagian heresy could not have been condemned in the first Council of Milevum, which began to be published only after a full decade. And consequently, the first eight Canons of this collection, by which the heads of the Pelagian heresy are condemned article by article, must necessarily belong to another Council. — Furthermore, the Council of Milevum, from which...

Which indeed is established first by Canon nine, whose words are: Likewise it has pleased that all the Bishops gathered at the Council be held no longer, three judges being elected from each Province, and there were elected from the Province of Carthage, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and Clarus; from the Province of Numidia, Alypius, Augustine, and Restitutus; from the Province of Byzacena, together with the holy elder Donatianus Primate, Cresconius, Jocundus, and Emilianus; from Mauritania Sitifensis, Severianus, Asiaticus, and Donatus; from the Province of Tripolitana, Plautius, who was sent as the one legate according to custom, who together with the holy elder Aurelius should examine everything, from whom the whole Council begs that he himself subscribe all the acts, whether those already completed or the Epistles, and they subscribed. Aurelius Bishop of the Church of Carthage consented to this decree, and subscribed after its reading, and similarly all the rest subscribed. It stands firm, I say, that this Canon cannot be judged to have been enacted by the second Synod of Milevum; for this Synod was Provincial of Numidia, but this Canon (as is evident) belongs to a plenary National Council, gathered from five Provinces of Africa. — Moreover, Aurelius Bishop of Carthage was not present at the second Council of Milevum, who at that time was celebrating a Provincial Synod at Carthage, from which he wrote to Innocent the Roman Pontiff; but at this Synod, in which the aforementioned Canon was enacted, he was present and presided. — Finally, at the second Council of Milevum Silvanus presided, who wrote letters together with the other Bishops of Numidia to Innocent; Silvanus indeed is not even named in this Canon; but to Aurelius Bishop of Carthage is given the faculty of writing and subscribing the Epistles; what therefore has this Council in common with the second of Milevum? — Nor is it likely that the first eight were enacted by the same Council: first because we have the letters of this Council to Pontiff Innocent, in which no mention is made of the Canons enacted by them, no approval is sought, a matter not to be passed over in silence, had it been done; then because the Fathers of that Synod, by common Epistles, and likewise four Bishops by their own particular letters directed to Innocent the Supreme Pontiff, beg that he publicly condemn Pelagianism; therefore it was not yet publicly condemned, nor were its assertors yet universally separated from the body of the Church, but the Fathers of Milevum beg that it might be done by the Roman Pontiff; then because St. Prosper, in his reply against the Chapters of the Gauls, cap. 8, speaking of those Canons, says: With two hundred and fourteen Priests, whose constitution against the enemies of the grace of God the whole world has embraced with oral profession: as their discourse has it: Let us speak of the grace of God, etc. And against the Collator: The 214 Priests erred, who in the Epistle, which they set before their Constitutions, addressed Zosimus of the Apostolic See thus: We have established, etc. If the Canons against Pelagius, which he calls Constitutions, were decreed in the time of Zosimus, and by 214 Bishops, certainly they were not decreed in the second of Milevum. Namely, the second of Milevum was held under Innocent, not under Zosimus, and there were present at it not 214 but only sixty Bishops, as they themselves profess in their Epistle to Innocent, publishing the names of each.

Again, in the poem against the ungrateful, the same Author, speaking of these Canons, which, as he had said before, were approved at Rome, adds:

They were founded, and written they remain, which from the cataracts Of the eternal fountain flowed forth, with metal overflowing, And were published by three hundred tongues of the Nobles.

Two hundred and fourteen Fathers he could call three hundred by synecdoche; but sixty, by no means.

If the Pelagian heresy, by the Canons enacted, had been condemned first at Milevum rather than at Rome, Prosper would have spoken falsely of it in the same book:

The coming plague the See of Peter's Rome first cut away, Which, made head of the world by pastoral honor, Holds by religion whatever it does not possess by arms.

Coelestinus the first, R. P., in an Epistle to the Bishops of the Gauls, writing against the Pelagians, cap. 10, says: That also which was established within the decrees of the Synod of Carthage we embrace as proper to the Apostolic See, namely what is defined in the third chapter: And whosoever shall say that the grace of God, whereby we are justified, etc. And he recites word for word Canon 3 of the Milevitan collection, and adds: And again in the same Chapter, that if anyone shall say that the grace of God through Jesus Christ helps us for this reason only, etc. And he recites the fourth Canon of that collection; and also the fifth, always under the name of Carthage, never of Milevum. But since Coelestinus entered upon his pontificate in the year of Christ 423, it is not likely that he was ignorant of the true Author of the Canons which he cited, whether they had been enacted under Zosimus or under Innocent, especially since he had the acts of both Pontiffs and of both Councils in this cause, and recited them in this same Epistle, from their authentic records, in their own words.

Let us conclude this passage with the testimony of all the ancient Codices. In the Epitome of the African Church, which Adrian the First gave to Charlemagne, the eight Canons against Pelagius are found with this note: «The eight chapters which follow were established under anathema in the Council of Carthage». In the body of the Canons of the African Church, which was read at Carthage in the plenary Council of Africa, after the consulship of Honorius XIII. and Theodosius XII., they are found word for word in the Council of Carthage of the preceding year, not in any Council of Milevum; there, however, all the Councils which were held in Africa in the time of Aurelius Bishop of Carthage are referred to together with their decrees. In the vulgar collection they are read verbatim in the plenary Council of Africa, Honorius VIII. and Theodosius VIII. Consuls. Photius says in his Library that he had read this Synod of Carthage with these Canons, against Pelagius and Coelestius. Binius, in the second Tome of the Councils, asserts that they are referred to the same Council in a certain ancient Codex of the Monastery of Saint Bavon of Ghent, and in a Codex printed at Mainz in the year 1652, according to the very ancient exemplar of the Monastery of Winchester. If therefore anyone, these things considered, should persist on account of that one collection in calling the Canons against Pelagius Milevitan, and not Carthaginian, I would say of him that he takes no account of human good faith.

VIII. THE CANONS OF THE SECOND COUNCIL OF ORANGE, CELEBRATED IN THE YEAR 529, WHEREBY IT IS CHIEFLY ESTABLISHED WHAT IS TO BE HELD CONCERNING GRACE AND FAITH.

Preface. — When we had come together, God propitious and Himself inviting, for the dedication of the Basilica which our most illustrious Prefect and Patrician son Liberius built at Orange in most faithful devotion, and when a spiritual colloquy had arisen among us concerning those matters which pertain to the ecclesiastical rule, it came to our attention that there are some who wish to hold opinions concerning grace and free will less cautiously, and not according to the rule of Catholic faith. Wherefore it seemed to us just and reasonable, according to the authority and admonition of the Apostolic See, that we ought to set forth for observance by all, and to subscribe with our own hands, the few chapters transmitted to us by the Apostolic See, which have been gathered by the ancient Fathers from certain volumes of the Scriptures, for the instruction of those who think otherwise than is fitting: which, when read, let those who hitherto have believed concerning grace and free will otherwise than was fitting not delay to incline their mind to those things which accord with Catholic faith.

1. If anyone says that through the offense of the prevarication of Adam man was not changed wholly for the worse, that is, as to body and soul, but believes that, the liberty of the soul remaining unimpaired, the body alone is subject to corruption, deceived by the error of Pelagius, he contradicts the Scripture saying: The soul that sinneth, the same shall die. And: Know ye not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, and of whomsoever one is overcome, to the same he is made a slave.

2. If anyone asserts that Adam's prevarication injured him alone, and not his progeny; or certainly testifies that death of the body alone, as the punishment of sin, passed through one man into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, he will do injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred through human invocation, but not that grace itself makes us keep silence so as to be invoked by us, he contradicts Isaias the Prophet, or the Apostle saying the same thing: I was found by them that did not seek me: I appeared openly to them that asked not after me.

4. If anyone contends that, in order that we may be cleansed from sin, God awaits our will; but does not confess that even that we may wish to be cleansed is wrought in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit Himself saying by Solomon: The will is prepared: etc., and the Apostle preaching: It is God who worketh in us both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

5. If anyone says that the beginning of faith, no less than its increase, and the very affection of belief, whereby we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and by which we arrive at the regeneration of baptism, is not in us through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit correcting our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but that it is naturally inherent in us, he is shown to be an adversary to Apostolic dogmas, St. Paul saying: We trust that he who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto the day of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that other: To you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him: and: By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. For they who say that the faith, whereby we believe in God, is natural define, in a certain manner, all those who are aliens from the Church of Christ to be believers.

6. If anyone says that without the grace of God divine mercy is bestowed divinely upon us believing, willing, desiring, striving, laboring, watching, studying, asking, knocking; but does not confess that, that we may believe, or will, or be able to do all these things as we ought, is wrought in us through the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit; and subordinates either the help of grace to human humility or obedience, and does not consent that it is the gift of grace itself that we should be obedient and humble; he resists the Apostle saying: What hast thou that thou hast not received? And: By the grace of God I am what I am.

7. If anyone confirms that by the vigor of nature any good thing pertaining to the salvation of eternal life can be chosen, as is expedient, either to choose or to consent to saving, that is, Evangelical preaching, without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all sweetness in consenting to and believing the truth, yet through heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of God in the Gospel saying: Without me you can do nothing. And that saying of the Apostle: In what are we able to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God?

8. If anyone contends that some come to the grace of baptism through mercy, others indeed through free will, which in all who are born from the prevarication of the first man is acknowledged to be vitiated, he is proved alien from right faith. For this Canon does not assert that the free will of all has been enfeebled through the sin of the first man; or certainly it so thinks it unimpaired that nevertheless certain ones could, without the revelation of God, acquire by themselves the mystery of eternal salvation. How contrary this is, the Lord Himself proves, who testifies that not some, but no one can come to Him unless the Father draw him, as He says also to Peter: Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven: And the Apostle: No man can say, the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost.

9. It is a divine gift both when we think rightly and when we restrain our feet from sadness and injustice: for as often as we do good, God worketh in us and with us, that we may work.

10. The help of God must ever be implored even by those reborn and holy, that they may arrive at a good end, or be able to persevere in good work.

11. Let no man vow anything rightly to the Lord unless he have received it from Him, as it is read: What we have received from thy hand, we give unto thee.

12. God loves such men as we shall be by His gift, not such as we are by our own merit.

13. The liberty of will enfeebled in the first man cannot be repaired except through the grace of baptism: and what was lost cannot be restored except by Him from whom it was able to be given, whence Truth itself says: If the Son shall make you free, then shall you be free indeed.

14. No wretched man is delivered from whatever misery unless he who is prevented by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says: Speedily anticipate us thy mercies, O Lord. And that other: My God, his mercy shall prevent me.

15. From that which God formed Adam was changed, but into worse through his iniquity: from that which iniquity wrought the faithful man is changed, but into better through the grace of God: therefore that change belonged to the prevaricator of old: this (according to the Psalm) is a change of the right hand of the Most High.

16. Let no one glory on account of what he seems to have, as though he had not received it, or suppose that for that reason he received it, because the letter appeared outwardly either to be read or sounded forth to be heard. For as the Apostle says: If justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain. But further, if He did not die in vain, ascending on high He led captivity captive, He gave gifts to men. Thence has whosoever hath: but whosoever denies himself to have thence, either truly hath not, or what he hath shall be taken away from him.

17. Worldly covetousness makes the fortitude of the Gentiles, but the charity of God makes the fortitude of Christians, which is poured forth in our hearts, not by the arbitrament of the will, which is from ourselves, but by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us, the grace preventing with no merits.

18. A reward is due to good works if they be done; but grace, which is not due, goes before, that they may be done.

19. Human nature, even if it remained in that integrity in which it was created, could by no means preserve itself, its Creator not assisting.

Whence since without the grace of God it cannot guard the salvation which it has received, how without the grace of God shall it be able to repair that which it has lost?

20. God does many good things in man which man does not do: but man does no good thing which God does not grant that man should do.

21. As to those who, wishing to be justified in the law, have fallen from grace, the Apostle most truly says: If justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain: so also concerning those who think that nature commends and receives the grace of faith in Christ, it is said most truly: if justice be by nature, then Christ died in vain. For already here was the law, and it did not justify; already here was nature, and it did not justify: therefore Christ did not die in vain, that both the law might be fulfilled through him, who said: I came not to dissolve the law, but to fulfill it: and that nature lost through Adam might be repaired through him, who said that he came to seek and to save that which was lost.

22. No one has anything of his own except lying and sin: but whatever a man has of truth and of justice is from that fountain which we ought to thirst after in this desert, that being sprinkled as it were with certain drops thence we may not fail on the way.

23. Men do their own will, not God's, when they do that which displeases God; but when they so do what they will as to serve the divine will, although willingly they do what they do, nevertheless it is his will by whom what they will is prepared and commanded.

24. So are the branches in the vine that they contribute nothing to the vine, but receive from it whence they live: for thus is the vine in the branches, that it ministers vital nourishment to them, not takes it from them: and hence it profits disciples both to have Christ remaining in themselves, and to remain in Christ, and not Christ. For when the branch is cut off, another can sprout from the living root; but he who has been cut off cannot live without the root.

25. Utterly is it the gift of God to love God: he himself gave it that he might be loved, who loves though not loved: displeasing, we were loved, that there might be wrought in us that whereby we might please. For the Spirit of the Father and of the Son diffuses charity into our hearts, whom we love with the Father and the Son.

But if according to the above-written sentences of the holy Scriptures, or the definitions of the ancient Fathers, this we ought, God propitious, both to preach and to believe: that through the sin of the first man free will has been so inclined and weakened that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or work for God what is good, unless grace and the divine mercy prevent him. Whence we believe that to Abel the just, and Noe, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the multitude of the ancient Saints, that illustrious faith which the Apostle Paul preaches to their praise, was conferred not through the good of nature which had been previously given in Adam, but through the grace of God. Which grace also after the coming of the Lord we know is conferred on all who desire to be baptized, not in their free will, but in the largess of Christ simultaneously, according to that already said above, and which the Apostle Paul preaches: To you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him. And that: By grace you are saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. And that which the Apostle says of himself: I have obtained mercy that I may be faithful. He did not say because I was, but that I might be. And that: What hast thou that thou hast not received? And that: Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights. And that: No one has any good thing unless it have been given him from above. Innumerable are the testimonies of the holy Scriptures which could be brought forward to prove grace, but they have been passed over out of zeal for brevity, since indeed where few do not suffice, more will not profit. This also we believe according to the Catholic faith: that grace accepted through baptism, all the baptized, Christ aiding and cooperating, can and ought to fulfill those things which pertain unto salvation, if they have willed to labor faithfully.

But that some have been predestinated to evil by the divine power, we believe not only not, but even if there be those who wish to believe so great an evil, with all detestation we say anathema to them. This also we wholesomely profess and believe; and afterwards we are helped by the mercy of God: but he himself, with no preceding good merits of ours, inspires both faith and love of himself, that we may faithfully seek the Sacraments of baptism, and after baptism, with his aid, may be able to fulfill those things which are pleasing to him. Thence it must be believed most manifestly, that that faith so admirable of the thief whom the Lord recalled to the fatherland of Paradise, and of Cornelius the Centurion, to whom the Angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zachaeus, who merited to receive the Lord himself, was not of nature, but the gift of the divine largess, etc. Thus the Council.

It must here be observed, moreover, that no light controversy is agitated among Doctors and Ecclesiastical Annalists as to by what Supreme Pontiff the above-written Canons were selected and directed to the Synod of Orange. For very many judge, with Suarez, Prolog. 6. De Gratia, cap. 1, that they were composed and sent by Leo, under whose vigor and diligence St. Prosper affirms the Pelagian heresy had been crushed and almost extinguished in Dimidio temp., cap. 6. Baronius ad Ann. Christi 462 judged that that Synod was celebrated not under Pope Leo but under Hilary his successor. Again, in the Appendix, Tom. 10, having revoked his prior opinion, he contends that that Synod was celebrated under the Roman Pontiff Felix IV, Anno Christi 526. And very many recent writers follow this opinion.

Observe further that very many judge the aforesaid Canons to have been everywhere culled from the doctrine of St. Augustine and conceived by St. Prosper, whose labors the Supreme Pontiffs used very much especially against the Semi-Pelagians. It is certain, however, that the Canones were composed not from the doctrine of one St. Aug., but collected also by the ancient Fathers from the volumes of the holy Scriptures, as is read in the preface, or as the conclusion bears: these are the definitions of the ancient Fathers. By which it is convicted that the Fathers judged this to be not a peculiar sentiment of St. Aug., but common to him with the other ancient Fathers; which indeed Boniface II confirms by his Epistle to Caesarius of Arles, whereby he confirms the Synod of Orange, chiefly in that part wherein it defined that we have not faith except from preceding grace through Christ, as doctrine handed down by many Fathers, and consonant with the Catholic rules of the Fathers.

SELECTED ITEMS FROM THE DECREES OF THE COUNCIL OF SENS. — Scarcely had the Lutheran pest begun to rage more widely and to propagate itself when the Cardinal a Prato, Archbishop of Sens and Chancellor of Gaul, convoked a Council at Paris, which is found in the last volume of the Councils under this title: the Council of Sens celebrated in the year of the Lord 1028, whose authority is so great that our Faventinus deservedly wrote, disp. 60. in 1. cap. t. Licitum: Although this Council of Sens is Provincial, it is nevertheless of great authority, and its whole doctrine seems to have been confirmed in the Council of Trent. Which indeed Suarez confirms, prolog. 6, writing: The Council of Trent, which was celebrated after 20 years, approves by its virtue the whole doctrine concerning grace which the Council of Sens had handed down; because it teaches nearly the same thing more expounded and enriched, as it defines. Wherefore that which Bellarmine prescribes universally, lib. 2. De Conciliis, cap. 10, and by the sense of all Catholics — that a particular Council not expressly confirmed makes an argument so probable that it is rash not to acquiesce in it — ought to be accommodated especially to this Synod.

Among the other decrees of that Council, which are eighteen in number, it has pleased to transcribe here only two, which most of all establish and define the doctrine De libero arbitrio, and also De fide, ac operibus bonis, merito, et gratia.

DECREE 16. On Free Will. — Although there is scarcely any Catholic truth so open, no passage of sacred Scripture so manifest, which heretics do not elude with their cavils and evasions: yet in none have they raged so shamelessly, and with such loss to the Christian cause, as in extirpating and rooting out free will. For what could that enemy of truth have devised more pernicious for the faithful of Christ, than that either seduced by Pelagius they should more proudly arrogate all things to themselves without the aid of grace; or with languishing and pusillanimous spirit, with Wyclif, commit all things to necessity and to fate? Certainly nothing will remain then, either for divine laws, or for human laws, nothing for counsels or election, nothing for prayers or rebuke, and other things of that kind: finally there will be no justice to come, whereby punishments have been constituted for some, rewards for others, if according to the sentiment of Wyclif and the Lutherans all things come about from necessity.

This error had first appeared among the Gentiles, but was soon cast out with the full consent of all; so greatly does free will press itself upon the minds of all, as if known by a certain evident experiment! Therefore since God has left man in the hand of his own counsel, and has set before him fire and water, good and evil, that unto whatsoever he will he may stretch forth his hand: it is not without reason that blessed is said to be that man who could have transgressed and has not transgressed, and could do evil and has not done it: since under him is his appetite, and he rules over it, and finally throughout the whole of sacred Scripture it everywhere meets one that the free will of man toward either part would be asserted, it has seemed sufficient to the holy Provincial Council to expound the powers and limits of this liberty.

For neither do we exclude divine grace while asserting free will, which they do not fear so often to impose falsely upon us, and now to strike at the eyes of believers with this charge: but according to sacred Scripture we extend it thus, that the human will, sustained by the aid of preventing mercy, and touched by a certain interior and hidden breathing of a more secret inspiration, turns itself to God, draws near to God, and prepares itself for that true grace, which at length received, it may be apt for eternal life. Nor does so great a necessity of grace prejudice free will, since it lies ready at hand, nor does even a moment pass in which God does not stand at the door and knock, and if anyone shall have opened the door to him, he will enter in to him and sup with him. Nor finally let the help of God thus drawing be such as cannot be resisted. For how often did the Lord will to gather together the children of Jerusalem, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and they would not? Vainly indeed would Stephen upbraid the Jews, of hard neck, and uncircumcised heart, who always resisted the Holy Spirit: vainly would Paul admonish the Thessalonians not to extinguish the spirit, if men were carried away inevitably by divine inspirations. God indeed draws, but we run in his odor; we are seized not by force, not by the hook; he predestinates, elects, calls, but those only who have fallen into vocation and election does he glorify as adults. And although he reaches from end to end mightily, yet he orders all things sweetly. This heresy therefore, which utterly takes away the liberty of arbitrium, we condemn not so much (seeing that it is already long since condemned) as we declare to be contrary to the common conception of men, and to the open testimonies of Scripture.

DECREE 17. On Faith, and Works, Merit, and Grace. — Frequent is that thing among the imprudent, and among those who are borne not so much by moderation of mind as by impulse, that while they incautiously flee from one vice they slip into another. Of this thing Luther affords proof, who while too eagerly persecuting confidence in works, at length leaves nothing remaining to works, and thus undertakes the defense of faith alone, so that he acknowledges faith alone and rejects and condemns works. But if those things be rightly weighed which he brings forward from the Scriptures in favor of faith, they do not exclude the other virtues. Those things truly which he cites against works pertain all of them either to excessive confidence in works, or to legal ceremonies. By faith indeed we live, and without this it is impossible to please God. If nevertheless anyone shall have had all faith, so as to remove mountains, but shall not have had charity, he is nothing; by faith we are justified, but by hope also we are saved; and there were remitted to Mary Magdalene many sins, because she loved much: for if anyone, saith the Lord, shall have loved me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. Now there remain Faith, Hope, Charity, these three: but the greater of these is Charity. And more powerful in quickening and justifying, since faith without works is dead. Then because faith is useful unto salvation when it worketh through charity; but charity is not idle, but labors through good works, to make our calling and election certain.

BULLS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFFS, PIUS V., GREGORY XIII., AND URBAN VIII., WHEREBY VERY MANY PROPOSITIONS OF BAIUS ARE CONDEMNED.

Urban Bishop servant of the servants of God, for perpetual memory of the matter.

IN eminenti, though placed in the See of the Church militant by merits unequal, we diligently apply ourselves that those things which have been providently established and ordained by Our Predecessors for the conservation of the Catholic faith may be firmly observed forever, and where need be may be strengthened by the protection of Our authority. Indeed of old from Pius Pope V. of happy memory, Our Predecessor, there issued a Constitution of the following tenor, namely: Pius Epi- scopus servant of the servants of God, for future memory of the matter. From all the afflictions which, constituted in this place by the Lord, we sustain in so mournful a time, that pain chiefly tortures our soul that the Christian Church, agitated so long by so great storms, is assailed by new opinions daily proposed; and the people of Christ, divided by the suggestion of the ancient enemy, is worn away everywhere and indiscriminately into errors of one kind and another: but as far as We are concerned, we strive with all our forces that these, as soon as they break forth, be utterly crushed: for we are affected with great grief that very many, otherwise of approved probity and doctrine, burst forth both in word and in writings into various opinions full of offense and danger, and even dispute about them in the schools with one another; of which kind are the following:

1. Neither Angels nor the first man, still integral, merit grace rightly called such.

2. As an evil work by its nature is meritorious of eternal death, so a good work by its nature is meritorious of eternal life.

3. Both to the good Angels and to the first man, if they had remained in that state until the end of life, felicity would have been wages, and not grace.

4. Eternal life was promised to man in his state of integrity and to the Angel in view of good works, and good works from the law of nature are per se sufficient for attaining it.

5. In the promise made to the Angel and to the first man is contained the constitution of natural justice, by which eternal life is promised to the just on account of good works without any other regard.

6. It was established by the natural law for man that, if he persevered in obedience, he would pass into that life in which he could not die.

7. The merits of the first man in his integrity were the gifts of the first creation, but according to the manner of speaking of Sacred Scripture they are not rightly called graces: whence it follows that they ought now to be called only merits, and not also grace.

8. In those redeemed by the grace of Christ no good merit can be found which has not been bestowed gratuitously upon the unworthy.

9. The gifts granted to man in his integrity and to the Angel can perhaps not be disapproved when called grace by reason; but because according to the usage of Scripture only those gifts are understood by the name of grace which are conferred through Jesus upon the ill-deserving and the unworthy, therefore neither the merits nor the reward rendered for them ought to be called grace.

10. The satisfaction of temporal punishment, which often remains after sin is forgiven, and the resurrection of the body, are to be ascribed properly to nothing but the merits of Christ.

11. That we attain eternal life because we have lived piously and justly in this mortal life even unto the end must be contended, by the just judgment of God, to belong not properly to the grace of God, but to the natural ordination established at the very beginning of creation; nor in this retribution of goods is any regard had to the merit of Christ, but only to the first institution of the human race, in which it was established by the natural law that, by the just judgment of God, eternal life be rendered for obedience to the commandments.

12. It is the sentiment of Pelagius that a good work done apart from the grace of adoption is not meritorious of the heavenly kingdom.

13. The good works done by the sons of adoption do not take on the character of merit from the fact that they are done through the Spirit of adoption dwelling in the hearts of the sons of God, but only from the fact that they are conformable to the law, and that through them obedience is rendered to the law.

14. The good works of the just will not receive in the day of the last judgment a greater reward than they would deserve to receive by the just judgment of God.

15. He says that the character of merit does not consist in this, that he who works well possesses grace and the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, but solely in this, that he obeys the divine law: which opinion he repeats again and again, and proves with many arguments throughout nearly the whole book.

16. In the same book he repeats more than once that there is no true obedience to the law which is done without charity.

17. He says that he shares the opinion of the Pelagians, who say that it is necessary to the character of merit that man be raised by the grace of adoption to a deific state.

18. He says that the works of Catechumens, such as faith and penance done before the remission of sins, are merits of eternal life, which life Catechumens will not attain unless first the impediments of their previous faults be removed.

19. He seems to insinuate that the works of justice and temperance which Christ performed did not derive a greater value from the dignity of the person performing them.

20. No sin is venial by its own nature, but every sin deserves eternal punishment.

21. The sublimation and exaltation of human nature into the fellowship of the divine nature was due to the integrity of the first condition; and therefore it must be called natural, and not supernatural.

22. With Pelagius think those who understand the text of the Apostle to the Romans 2, the Gentiles, who have not the law, do naturally the things that are of the law, as speaking of Gentiles not possessing the grace of faith.

23. Absurd is the opinion of those who say that man was exalted from the beginning by some supernatural and gratuitous gift above the condition of nature, so that he might worship God supernaturally by faith, hope, and charity.

24. By vain and idle men, according to the folly of the Philosophers, has been devised that opinion, which is to be rejected as Pelagianism: that man was so constituted from the beginning that, through the gifts superadded to nature, he was elevated by the largess of the Creator and adopted as a son of God.

25. All the works of unbelievers are sins, and the virtues of the Philosophers are vices.

26. The integrity of the first creation was not an undeserved exaltation of human nature, but its natural condition: which opinion he repeats and proves through several chapters.

27. Free will without the help of the grace of God avails for nothing but sinning.

28. It is a Pelagian error to say that free will avails for avoiding any sin whatsoever.

29. Not only are those thieves and robbers who deny that Christ is the way, and the door of truth, and of life, but also whosoever say that one can ascend by some other way than through Christ to the way of justice, that is, to any justice whatsoever.

30. Either that man can resist any temptation without the help of grace itself, so as neither to be drawn into it nor overcome by it.

31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, can exist both in Catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.

32. That charity which is the fulness of the law is not always joined with the remission of sins.

33. The Catechumen lives justly, rightly, and holily, and keeps the commandments of God and fulfils the law through charity, before obtaining the remission of sins, which is at length received in the washing of baptism.

34. That distinction of a twofold love, namely natural, whereby God is loved as the author of nature, and gratuitous, whereby God is loved as the beatifier, is vain and fictitious, devised to mock Holy Scripture and very many testimonies of the ancients.

35. Everything which a sinner does, or a servant of sin, is either sin or is sin.

36. Natural love, which arises from the powers of nature, is defended by certain teachers from Philosophy alone, through the elation of human presumption, with injury to the cross of Christ.

37. With Pelagius thinks he who acknowledges any natural good, that is, one which takes its origin from the powers of nature alone.

38. Every love of a rational creature is either vicious concupiscence, by which the world is loved, which John forbids: or that praiseworthy charity which, poured forth in the heart by the Holy Spirit, loves God.

39. What is done voluntarily, even if done under necessity, is nevertheless done freely.

40. In all his acts the sinner serves the ruling concupiscence.

41. That mode of liberty which is from necessity is not found under the name of liberty in the Scriptures, but only the name of liberty from sin.

42. The justice by which the impious man is justified through faith consists formally in the obedience of the commandments, which is the justice of works; and not in any grace infused into the soul, whereby man is adopted as a son of God, is renewed according to the inward man, and is made a partaker of the divine nature, so that, being thus renewed by the Holy Spirit, he may thereafter live well and obey the commandments of God.

43. In all penitents before the Sacrament of absolution, and in Catechumens before baptism, there is true justification, yet separated from the remission of sins.

44. By most of the works which the faithful perform that they may obey the commandments of God, such as obeying parents, restoring a deposit, abstaining from homicide, from theft, and from fornication, men are indeed justified, because these are works of the obedience of the law and of the true justice of the law; yet by them they do not obtain increase of the virtues.

45. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice for no other reason than that general one, by which every work done is such that man may adhere to God in holy fellowship.

46. To the reason and definition of sin there does not pertain the voluntary, nor is it a question of the definition, but of the cause and origin: whether every sin ought to be voluntary?

47. Whence original sin truly has the character of sin without any relation or respect to the will, from which it took its origin.

48. Original sin is voluntary in the habitual will of the little child, and it habitually dominates the child, inasmuch as the free choice does not act in a contrary manner.

49. And from the habitual dominating will it comes about that the child dying without the Sacrament of regeneration, when he had actually attained the use of reason, would hate God, blaspheme God, and conflict with the law of God.

50. Evil desires, with which reason does not consent, and which man suffers unwillingly, are forbidden by the commandment: Thou shalt not covet.

51. Concupiscence, or the law of the members, and its evil desires, which men feel unwillingly, are a true disobedience of the law.

52. Every crime of his is of such a condition that he can infect his own author and all posterity in the same manner whereby the first transgression infected them.

53. As great as is the force of the transgression, so great a store of evil merits do those contract who are born with lesser vices, as those who are born with greater.

54. This definitive sentence, that God commanded man nothing, is falsely attributed to Augustine, for it belongs to Pelagius.

55. God could not have created from the beginning such a man as is now born.

56. In sin there are two things, the act and the guilt; but when the act passes away, nothing remains except the guilt, that is, the obligation to punishment.

57. Whence in the Sacrament of baptism, or in the absolution of a Priest, properly only the guilt of sin is taken away, and the ministry of Priests liberates only from guilt.

58. The penitent sinner is not vivified by the ministry of the absolving Priest, but by God alone, who, suggesting and inspiring penance, vivifies and raises him up: but by the ministry of the Priest the guilt alone is taken away.

59. When through alms and other works of piety we satisfy God for temporal punishments, we do not offer to God a worthy price for our sins, as certain erring persons suppose: for otherwise we would be at least in some part redeemers; but we do something in view of which the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated to us.

60. Through the sufferings of the Saints communicated in an indulgence, our offenses are not properly redeemed, but by the communion of charity their sufferings are imparted to us, that we may be worthy to be delivered from the punishments due for sins by the price of the blood of Christ.

61. That celebrated distinction of the doctors, that the commandments of the divine law are fulfilled in two ways: in one way as regards only the substance of the works commanded, in the other as regards a certain definite manner, namely according to which they avail, when done, to lead to the eternal kingdom, that is, after the manner of merits, is fictitious and to be rejected.

62. That distinction also, whereby a work is said to be good in two ways, either because from its object and all circumstances it is right and good, which has been wont to be called morally good; or because it is meritorious of the eternal kingdom, inasmuch as it is done by a living member of Christ through the spirit of charity, is thought to be rejected.

63. Similarly, that distinction also of a twofold justice: of one, which comes about through the indwelling spirit of charity; of the other, which comes about indeed from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit exciting the heart to penance, but not yet dwelling in the heart and pouring forth charity in it, whereby the justification of the divine law is fulfilled, is rejected as most odious and most obstinate.

64. Finally, that distinction also of a twofold vivification, of one whereby the sinner is vivified, while penance, and the purpose and beginning of a new life are inspired in him by the grace of God: of the other whereby he is vivified who is truly justified and is made a living branch in the true Christ, is judged fictitious and by no means consonant with the Scriptures.

65. Any use of free will that is good, or not evil, can be admitted only with a Pelagian error: and he does an injury to the grace of Christ who so thinks and teaches.

66. Only violence conflicts with the natural liberty of man.

67. Man sins even damnably in that which he does necessarily.

68. Infidelity purely negative in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin.

69. The justification of the impious takes place formally through obedience of the law, and not through a hidden communication and inspiration of grace, which makes those justified by it fulfill the law.

70. Man existing in mortal sin, or in the guilt of eternal damnation, can have true charity; and charity even perfect can consist with the guilt of eternal damnation.

71. Through contrition even joined with perfect charity, and with the vow of receiving the sacrament, the crime is not remitted outside the case of necessity or of martyrdom without the actual reception of the sacrament.

72. All the afflictions whatsoever of the just are vengeance for their own sins; whence John and the martyrs suffered what they suffered on account of their sins.

73. No one besides Christ is without original sin; hence the Blessed Virgin died on account of sin contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life were, as those of other just men, vengeance for actual or original sin.

74. Concupiscence in those reborn who have relapsed into mortal sin, in whom it now dominates, is a sin, as are also the other evil habits.

75. The movements of evil concupiscence are, for the state of man wayfaring, forbidden by the commandment: thou shalt not covet: whence man feeling, and not con- senting, transgresses the commandment: thou shalt not covet, although the transgression is not accounted sin.

76. So long as any concupiscence of the flesh is in one who loves, he does not fulfill the commandment: thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart.

77. The laborious satisfactions of the justified are not of condign worth to expiate the temporal punishment remaining after guilt has been forgiven.

78. The immortality of the first man was not a benefit of grace, but a natural condition.

79. False is the opinion of the Doctors that the first man could have been created and constituted by God without natural justice.

Which opinions indeed, weighed before Us in a strict examination, although some of them could in some manner be sustained in the rigor and proper sense of the words intended by their assertors, we condemn, circumscribe, and abolish as heretical, erroneous, suspect, rash, scandalous, and inflicting offense on pious ears, respectively, and by whatsoever word or writing emitted concerning them, by the present authority: and we forbid to all persons hereafter the faculty of speaking, writing, and disputing about the same and similar things in whatever manner. Those who act otherwise we deprive perpetually of all his dignities, grades, honors, benefices, and offices, and we likewise declare them unfit for any whatsoever, and by that very fact we bind them also with the bond of anathema, from which no one inferior to the Roman Pontiff can release them, except at the article of death, etc.

IT MUST BE OBSERVED FIRST that this condemnation of these propositions was published first by the Supreme Pontiffs, without that order and fixed number of propositions which we designated above, as is evident from the printed exemplars at Rome, 1579, the fourth of February. Afterwards, however, for the sake of greater clarity it was transcribed by Theologians with numbers added, so that the propositions which they brought forward in disputation could be cited more conveniently. Moreover, there are several propositions distinguished by separate numbers which seem to contain entirely the same doctrine and the same error; yet they are counted as distinct because they propose the opinion not in one and the same manner, but in a manifold and diverse way, and sometimes with some addition. Finally, it must be known that certain propositions among those mentioned above are not found in the little works published by Michael Baius; because not only were those opinions exhibited to the Pontiff which had been excerpted from Baius's printed booklets, but also those which had been asserted only by living voice, or dictated to his disciples in the schools.

TO BE NOTED SECONDLY, that although the Pontifical censure of these propositions, as regards the individual assertions, is indetermi- nate and ambiguous — six censures in general indeed are passed against these propositions by the Supreme Pontiffs, pronouncing the assertions of Baius to be heretical, erroneous, sus- pect, rash, scandalous, and inflicting offenses on pious ears, which individual censures do not fall upon the individual propositions, but together with the proposition accommodated, wherefore "respectively" is added: nevertheless there is no one of these propositions which escapes the Pontifical censure; seeing that the decrees of the Pontiffs expressly pronounce those opinions, in the rigor and proper sense of the words intended by the assertors, to be heretical, erroneous, etc., and to be condemned, circumscribed, and abolished, and they forbid to all persons the faculty of speaking, writing, and disputing about them and similar things in whatever manner; wherefore none of those propositions can be defended by a son of the Roman Church.

TO BE NOTED THIRDLY, that when Michael Baius himself had found out that these propositions of his had been condemned by Apostolic authority, being pious as he was, and a most obedient son of the Church, he retracted and condemned the same by a public act, the exemplar of which condemnation, fortified with his own hand and seal, he sent to Rome on May 24, in the year 1580, the tenor of which follows: I, Michael de Baius, Chancellor of the University of Louvain, acknowledge and profess that from various conversations and communications held with the Reverend Father D. Francis Toledo, preacher of his Holiness, and sent specially for this matter, concerning divers opinions and propositions long ago condemned and prohibited by the most holy D. N. Pius V. of happy memory under date of the kalends of October in the year 1567, and recently by Gregory XIII., the present supreme Pontiff, under date of the 4th of the kalends of February in the year 1579, I have been so moved and led thereby that I hold myself fully persuaded that the condemnation and prohibition of all those opinions was made and decreed rightly, deservedly, and only after mature judgment and a most diligent discussion having been premised, I confess: moreover very many of the same opinions are contained and defended even in that sense in which they are reproved, in certain little books formerly written by me, and published before the censure of the Apostolic See concerning them emanated. Finally I declare that in the presence of all these things I now withdraw from them all, and acquiesce in the condemnation made by the Holy See; nor do I wish hereafter to teach, assert, or defend them. Given at Louvain, the 21st day of March, in the year 1580. — It would nevertheless be desirable, for the resolving and settling of all controversies concerning the censure of each single proposition of this kind, that the Church should designate which note of condemnation befits each particular proposition; which, until it is done, I judge it will not be unwelcome to subjoin here the censure of the sacred Faculty of Paris concerning certain of those propositions referred to it by two Belgian Superiors of our Order, as will appear from the preface of the same censure.

CENSURE OF THE SACRED FACULTY OF PARIS against certain propositions.

In the year of the Lord one thousand five hundred sixty, on Thursday, the twenty-seventh day of the month of June, the most sacred Faculty of Theology of Paris, after Mass had been celebrated according to custom at the College of the Sorbonne, was gathered in the same College by oath in the matter of faith, upon the propositions written below, noted with Censure by the same Faculty with mature deliberation of the Masters, which brother Peter de Quercu, Guardian of the convent of Nivelles, and brother Aegidius de Querceto, Guardian of Ath, sent to the aforesaid Faculty of Theology, sealed with the seals of the aforesaid Convents; beseeching earnestly that the said Faculty pass censure upon them, the tenor of which propositions follows together with the censure upon them.

I. Proposition. The free will of man does not have power unto opposites, nor is that power fitting to it from its own natural and intrinsic reason. — Censure: the first part of this proposition is heretical: the second is false, and erroneous, and adverse to Moral Philosophy.

II. Proposition. Liberty and necessity belong to it with respect to the same thing, and only violence conflicts with the natural liberty of man. — Censure: the first part of this proposition includes a contradiction, and is heretical: the second is false.

III. Proposition. The free will, from its intrinsic reason, does not have that of itself, and through itself, it should elicit a free act. — Censure: this proposition is false, erroneous, and pernicious.

IV. Proposition. The free will of itself can only sin, and every work of the free will left to itself is mortal or venial sin. — Censure: this proposition, as to both parts, is heretical.

V. Proposition. Man, by doing what is in him, sins: and he cannot avoid sinning by doing what is in him. — Censure: this whole proposition is heretical.

VI. Proposition. To be able to sin is not of the reason of man's free will, nor was such a power of sinning given to man by God. — Censure: the first part of this proposition is false: the second heretical.

VII. Proposition. The free will of man cannot avoid sin without the special grace of God; whence it comes about that every work of one who is purely an infidel is sin. — Censure: the second part of this proposition is false; and it is badly inferred from what precedes.

VIII. Proposition. The free will freely wills whatsoever happens spontaneously or voluntarily; so that what it wills necessarily, it wills the same freely. — Censure: the second part of this proposition implies a contradiction, and is heretical.

IX. Proposition. A heretic, a schismatic, and a man purely an infidel sometimes merits eternal life de congruo. — Censure: this proposition is plainly heretical.

X. Proposition. Man existing in mortal sin, whether in its guilt unto eternal death, has charity in himself. — Censure: this proposition is heretical.

XI. Proposition. Through contrition, without the sacrament of Baptism or of Penance being really applied, the crime is not remitted outside the case of martyrdom and of necessity. — Censure: this proposition is heretical.

XII. Proposition. If a sinner does what is commanded, through contrition, and Confession made to a Priest, his sin is not remitted to him unless the Priest absolve; even if the Priest out of malice deny him absolution without reason. — Censure: this proposition is heretical.

XIII. Proposition. Only with the Pelagian error admitted can there be before the first justification in man a good use of free will; and he who prepares himself for it sins, like one who most wickedly abuses his natural goods; for before it, all the works of man are sins worthy of damnation. — Censure: this proposition, as to all its parts, is heretical.

XIV. Proposition. Grace is not given except to one resisting; likewise neither is the first justification, which justification is faith itself: for faith is that whereby anyone from impious becomes pious. — Censure: the two first parts of this proposition are heretical, and the third is false.

XV. Proposition. Man sins necessarily, even damnably, in some species of sin, and the act toward which he is necessarily borne is sin to him; wherefore to be borne freely into the act is not a necessary condition for sinning. — Censure: this proposition is heretical as to all its parts.

XVI. Proposition. No one besides Christ is without original sin: hence the Blessed Virgin died on account of the sin which she had contracted from Adam: and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other just men, are vengeance for original or actual sin, whence Job also suffered, and the martyrs, on account of their sins. — Censure: this proposition, as to all its parts,

XVII. Proposition. Do all things to the glory of God: and I say to you not to resist evil: are to be taken simply as precepts. — Censure: the latter part of this proposition, as it lies, is heretical.

XVIII. Proposition. Every good work is meritorious of eternal life; but if any work be rewarded temporally only, not worthy of eternal life, that work is evil, because there is no good work meritorious except of eternal life. — Censure: this whole proposition conflicts with sacred Scripture.

Other Censures also, celebrated in this age, have been published, both by the Supreme Pontiffs and by the sacred Faculty of Paris, concerning other propositions relating to divine grace: which, since they are in everyone's hands, and adhere tenaciously to the minds and memories also of candidate Theologians, therefore I judged that they need not be annexed here.