Faustus of Riez

ON ST. FAUSTUS OF RIEZ, BISHOP,

IN THE PROVINCE OF GAUL

About the year 490

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Faustus, bishop of Riez in the Province of Gaul. (S.)

BY J. S.

§ I. The ancient cult of the Saint: his memory in the sacred calendars, and probably in the Hieronymian ones as well: his sanctity acknowledged by Baronius.

[ ] Our Bollandus, at the sixteenth of January, treated briefly of St. Faustus, because he did not know the day Of St. Faustus, of whom there was earlier a brief treatment, on which he is venerated in the church of Riez, and found him commemorated on that day by several martyrologists. But afterwards he learned from the Offices of Riez that he is venerated on the twenty-eighth of September. Hence he wished that he should be transferred to this day, and he indicated this by a double slip of paper, the one glued to the margin of the volume, the other deposited among the documents of this day. Henschenius too, in the Prætermissa to the eleventh of May, referred St. Faustus of Riez to this day. I shall therefore obey the will of the Fathers whom I must revere, and shall so follow in the footsteps of Bollandus that I shall set out at greater length, in the manner of today, the things briefly said by him — just as Bollandus himself would do now, if he were alive. His words, as he reviews the Martyrologies, I here transfer first.

[2] his memory inserted into various Martyrologies at the sixteenth of January, "Claudius Robertus calls him a Saint in the Gallia Christiana. Maurolycus: 'At Riez in Gaul, of Faustus the bishop, in the time of Anastasius the first.' Ferrarius has nearly the same, and the Carthusians of Cologne in their additions to Usuard." (The very words of Grevenus, whom he indicates, I transfer hither: "At Riez of Gaul, of Faustus the bishop, who, elected from being abbot of Lérins,[] full of holiness and continually taken up with the divine Scriptures, is proclaimed by Gennadius.") "Constantine Ghini wrote erroneously that he was made bishop from being abbot of the Lateran: he meant to write, of Lérins. Galesinius wanders more seriously astray: 'At Riez,' he says, 'of St. Faustus the bishop, whose books, piously and learnedly written, and whose deeds, wonderfully performed, are read.' In his Notes he says that he was bishop of Reggio Lepidi: but, while he cites Gennadius praising the books of Faustus, he signifies that he is dealing with this Faustus of ours. But he whose books Gelasius decreed were to be held apocryphal, he calls Faustinus, bishop of Riez; whereas one and the same is Faustus, third abbot of the monastery of Lérins, successor of St. Maximus, then bishop of Riez, that is, of the city of the Reii in the province of Narbonensis Secunda, commonly Riez in Provence. Saussay too reckons him among the Saints, in the Supplement to the Gallican Martyrology. 'At Riez,' he says, 'the memory of St. Faustus, bishop and confessor, from being a monk of Lérins.' Peter de Natalibus, book 2, chapter 91, calls him a Saint. Vincent Barralis Salernus, in his Chronology of Lérins, testifies that he is venerated as a Saint from of old." Thus far Bollandus. The aforesaid de Natalibus adds that Faustus died on the seventeenth of the Kalends of February. That St. Faustus is announced by Camerarius in the Scottish Menology at the eleventh of May was said on that same day in the Prætermissa*.

[3] St. Faustus of Riez seems also to be announced in the principal Hieronymian Martyrologies at the twentieth of May. and probably in the Hieronymian ones at the twentieth of May. The text of Florentinius, faulty, has: "And the deposition of Vellesus and of Faustinus the bishop." He who is here Faustinus is in the rest called Faustus. In the Epternach codex, the former name being omitted, there is read, according to Florentinius in his Annotata: "And of Faustus, of the bishops." But in the Corbie codex: "And the deposition of Vellesus and of Faustus, of the bishops." That it is read in like manner in the Blumian codex, "and of Faustus the Bishop," Florentinius testifies at page 1063. The name of Faustus occurs at the same day in the Reichenau, in the Augsburg, in the Labbean, and in the Gellone codices. But in Wandelbert there is read: "and the deposition of Faustus the bishop." The agreement of so many codices against the one of Florentinius persuades us that Fausti is rather to be read than Faustini. But since nearly all those codices are from Gaul, it becomes highly probable that the Bishop was a Faustus in Gaul. Now, however, neither in Gaul nor in any other province do I find a Faustus, bishop and confessor, of whose ancient cult I have evidence, except Faustus of Riez and Faustus of Tarbes. Whence a strong suspicion arises that it is Faustus of Riez himself whom the Hieronymian Martyrologies announce.

[4] Whatever the case may be, it is at least beyond doubt that St. Faustus is venerated in his own church with an ecclesiastical Office at this twenty-eighth day of September. He is venerated in the church of Riez with an Octave. For we have the proper Offices of the Saints of the church of Riez, printed in the year 1635, in which there is prescribed, on the twenty-eighth day of September, on the feast of St. Faustus, bishop of Riez and confessor, a double Office of the second class with an Octave. The lessons of the first nocturn are from the book of Ecclesiasticus, which are wont to be read for Doctors of the Church, and they begin thus: "The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients," and so forth. For the second nocturn they have been put together out of those things which St. Sidonius wrote about Faustus. For the third nocturn a Homily of St. Faustus himself is read. On the fourth day within the Octave, in the fourth lesson, the Saint's diligence in preaching is praised, and to our present purpose these things are subjoined: "In memory of which thing the pulpit, from which to the people

he used to speak, was carefully preserved almost down to these times, and was always held in great veneration by those who beheld it, until, when by the utmost sacrilege within the memory of our fathers the basilica of Riez, built by blessed Maximus himself, was leveled to the ground, the very seat of holy Faustus as he preached was wrapped in the same ruins and fell together with that splendid structure of a most august temple, no monument (alas!) of so great a thing being left." In lesson 6 these things are found: "He died on the seventh of the Kalends of February; although nevertheless his solemnity is kept in the church of Riez, where he himself sat as prelate, on the third of the Kalends of October, and in the ancient tables of the ecclesiastical Office, or in the Calendar of that church, it is found entered on this day." The author perhaps meant, in place of the third of the Kalends of October — that is, the twenty-ninth of September — to say the fourth of the Kalends, unless the festivity was formerly celebrated on the twenty-ninth of September and afterwards transferred to the preceding day; but of that I find no indication.

[5] that the Office was omitted in the year 1294, Pagi, at the year 490, number 17, writes these things concerning the ancient cult of St. Faustus: "The church of Riez, of which he was bishop, celebrates a proper Office of him, which I myself read in a choir book of that same church, written out in the year 1545. It is indeed true that in another book, also manuscript, of the proper Offices of the same church, ordained by Peter de Millia, bishop of Riez, in the year 1294, whose inscription I reported at the year 466, number 5, no mention is made of Faustus. But it is to be reckoned that, just as Molanus first of all struck Faustus out of the Gallican Martyrology, so Peter de Millia was the first among the bishops of Riez to erase him from the proper Offices of his church: whom nevertheless his successors, with just merit, again inscribed in the sacred calendars of that same church, for the reasons assigned by Baronius in the second edition of his Annals."

[6] and afterwards restored, some hold. For that Peter de Millia altered some things in the Institutions of the cathedral church of Riez becomes manifest from these words of the Sainte-Marthes among the bishops of Riez, when they are speaking of that bishop: "In the year 1294 he ordered the Office of blessed Thecla, martyr and patroness of Riez, to be celebrated." This whole reasoning of Pagi so pleased the Most Eminent Lambertini, afterwards Pope Benedict XIV — who in this year 1758 was translated, as we hope, to a better life — that in his learned work On the Canonization of Saints, book 2, chapter 29, number 8, he says of St. Faustus of Riez that he is so venerated in his own church with an ecclesiastical Office that, although Peter de Millia, bishop of that city, forbade him to be venerated with an Office, nevertheless Peter's successors restored to him the cult of an Office. It is indeed highly probable that St. Faustus was venerated with an Office before the times of Peter de Millia; yet on that reasoning of Pagi alone I would not dare to call it certain. Nor, from the fact that in some choir book an Office of Faustus was not found, can any certain argument be had of a cult then omitted.

[7] Many things certainly present themselves, But there are many things which leave scarcely any doubt that St. Faustus of Riez has a most ancient cult in his own church. Tillemont, in volume 16, under Faustus, admits that such eulogies were given to Faustus while he lived, on account of his exercise of the virtues, and that there was such esteem for him, that he would have to be honored as a distinguished Saint, had he not written against grace and predestination. We have indeed no need of the testimony of one who pursues St. Faustus with a hostile pen, since we have as witnesses Apollinaris Sidonius and Ruricius of Limoges, holy and contemporary prelates, who attended him while living with so many praises that they wrung out that confession even from an unwilling Tillemont: but we believe that testimony given by an enemy can seem in no way suspect. His objections against the sanctity of Faustus we shall see below, and shall refute. Meanwhile I observe that the esteem for St. Faustus always remained the same in Gaul down to his death, and long after his death; or at any rate that no indication to the contrary occurs.

[8] After the death of Faustus there flourished St. Caesarius, bishop of Arles, which leave scarcely any doubt, by whose exertions above all the errors of the Semipelagians were condemned in the year 529 in the council of Orange 11. Without doubt St. Caesarius knew the books of Faustus, and studied diligently to cut out the errors of the Semipelagians: yet even so, in the writing which he subjoins to the Epistle of Pope John II (in Labbe, volume 4, column [ ]), he brings forward the authority of Faustus as of a holy Bishop, writing thus: "Concerning which Faustus also, the holy bishop, said in his Epistle: 'He loses the grace of the consecrated man who still wishes to exercise the office of a husband.'" Sirmond notes in the same place in his Annotata that in the Corbie codex there is read Domnus Faustus; in the Pithou codex, and in another noted in the margin, Sanctus Faustus; in the Fleury codex, Sanctus Faustus episcopus. Tillemont, article 10, replies that there are codices where Sanctus is not read. That is true of the Corbie codex, where domnus has been substituted; but I have seen no other assigned. Yet four codices will easily prevail over one. He says, secondly, that the title of Saint was readily given to bishops who died in Catholic communion. But words are not enough for me: I require proof; nor will it ever be proved, I think, that the title of Saint was given after death to other bishops than those of whose sanctity there was a great opinion.

[9] I observe besides that in the Epistle praised no other authorities are alleged that St. Faustus has a most ancient than those of St. Siricius the Pope, of the Apostolic canons and of the councils, and finally of St. Faustus for the matter in hand; but those of the holy Cyprian and Chrysostom, for not neglecting the carrying out of the business proposed, that is, the deposition of Contumeliosus the bishop, who had been accused of various crimes. Now Contumeliosus was Faustus's own successor, that is, bishop of Riez, so that he could not be ignorant of the fame which then flourished concerning the character, virtues, and teaching of Faustus. And the case was handled four or five years after the council of Orange 11, in which the doctrine of the Semipelagians had been condemned. Besides, Caesarius was writing to the bishops of Gaul, who must have known the doctrine of Faustus. Wherefore it is necessary that we say that the doctrine of Faustus did not appear to St. Caesarius to be of such a kind as either to bring any detriment upon his sanctity, or any prejudice against his authority in the matter which was being dealt with. Otherwise he would neither have called him a Saint, nor have alleged his authority in so grave a matter against Contumeliosus.

[10] The author of the Life of St. Hilary of Arles, in the Life given by us at the fifth of May, number 12, relates cult in the church of Riez that St. Caprasius, gravely ill, was visited by St. Hilary on the island of Lérins, and on that occasion says these things of St. Hilary: "In the same place, at that time, he so honored St. Faustus, at once presbyter and abbot, being foreknowing of things to come, that he compelled him to sit in the middle between himself and the holy priests Theodore and Maximus." These things were written either while Faustus was among the living, and so show how great was the esteem for the old man; or when he had not long been dead, and so prove the notable fame of his sanctity after death. In the Life of St. Caprasius, given at the first of June, which was certainly written after the death of St. Faustus in the seventh century or later, these things are read: "At his last moments, therefore, there came together priests of glorious and famous memory, namely Faustus, Theodore, Maximus, and Hilary." Dynamius the patrician, toward the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the seventh, dedicated the Life of St. Maximus of Riez to Urbicus, bishop of Riez, and in the dedicatory Epistle, which Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe recited in volume 1 of the reissued Gallia Christiana, column 394, he makes mention of St. Faustus with the title of Blessed, saying that Urbicus had inquired "what, out of his" (Maximus's) "works, the devoted skill of Blessed Faustus the prelate, your predecessor, had gathered." From the things alleged it is established that the name of St. Faustus was great in Gaul, even after his death, at least in the first centuries after his death, so that in that time the cult seems to have been begun which even now perseveres. Wherefore it seems rather to be Faustus of Riez whose name we saw inserted in the Hieronymian Martyrologies at number 3, than any other.

[11] is possessed by him. Castellanus nevertheless, at the twentieth of May, seems to have believed it another, since he there has it thus: "At Cavaillon, St. Faustinus the confessor, bishop of another see." From letters from Riez I have learned that there is an opinion there that St. Faustus of Riez died at Cavaillon, and that his relics are preserved in that same place, and indeed that he is celebrated with an Office on the twenty-first of May, but under the name of Faustinus. Honoré Bouche, in his History of Provence, book 2, chapter 9, page 596, says that St. Faustus of Riez is venerated in many churches of Provence, and namely at Cavaillon and at Lérins. His cult at Lérins, where certainly there once was a cult, I see asserted also in the letters from Riez. Besides, in the manuscript codices the title of Saint or of Blessed is for the most part prefixed to his name. But, to return to Castellanus, for the time of the death of Faustinus he assigns in the margin the fourth century, but he does not indicate on what ground he does so. He does not seem to have received this from the people of Cavaillon, since these, as I have learned from a slip sent hither from there, do not venerate Faustinus as a pontiff but as a confessor who was not a pontiff, and therefore believe that the Faustinus whose relics they have, mingled, as it is said, with the relics of other Saints, was not a bishop. But that Faustinus, unless he be our present St. Faustus, is plainly unknown, as the people of Cavaillon admit. Wherefore the opinion of the people of Riez does not seem improbable to me, which is also inserted into the sixth lesson of the Office of the Octave, as I understand from the letters — namely, that he died at Cavaillon, and is there venerated with an Office under the name of Blessed Faustinus, abbot of Lérins. Whatever the case, the ancient cult of St. Faustus is plainly certain and beyond doubt: and I suspect that he is the one designated in the Hieronymian codices.

[12] Baronius retracts the things he had written Hence Baronius, when he had understood the ancient cult of St. Faustus, scrupulously retracted the things which he had sharply written in volume 6 of the Annals, at the year 490, against those who honor Faustus with the title of Saint or Blessed. And since it is not worthy of the piety and erudition of Baronius to restore the title of Saint and to attack the sanctity of his character, he must be reckoned to have retracted at the same time many things which he had hurled rather vehemently against Faustus himself, although he did not change his judgment concerning the doctrine of Faustus. But while he restores to Faustus the title of Saint, he alleges several reasons which I am unable to confirm. Of which sort chiefly is that concerning a basilica marked with the title of his name: for concerning this basilica I have been able to find nothing. From the letters from Riez I learn only that in the ancient cathedral, afterwards overthrown, there was a chapel dedicated to St. Faustus. Let us hear Baronius in the addenda, volume 10, page 961, where he has it thus: "For the fact that down to these our own times the Gallican Martyrology has kept that same Faustus among the Saints, from which Molanus first struck him out; the fact also that, as we have learned, the church of Riez in Gaul, where he himself sat as prelate, has always venerated him as a Saint, celebrating his birthday on the seventeenth of January" (rather, the twenty-eighth of September), "and that there in his memory

a basilica anciently erected, marked with the title of his name, is frequented down to now with his cult by the faithful:

[13] "And the fact that for so many centuries, while the Christian world looked on and the Roman Church kept silence, with absolutely no one (so far as is known) contradicting, these things are understood to have been rendered to that same Faustus — against the sanctity of Faustus, we are not forbidden to hold the opinion that it could have happened concerning that same Faustus (as is asserted of many holy men) that he erred by transgressing, and that, since that question was defined by the authority of the Apostolic See, and his opinion condemned by the judgment of the other Fathers, he himself detested his error by contrary writings: which may have perished, as very many other things have; or that he himself died before the condemnation of his writings was made by the Church (for the year of his death is uncertain), having it in mind to follow in these matters what the Church should teach was to be followed. That he was indeed so composed in mind, and that this was known to others, can easily be understood from the fact that he always (as the Acts of the councils of Arles and Lyons recited above indicate) held communion with the most holy bishops of the Gauls. Let Faustus therefore keep his own rights entire, and let him suffer no prejudice from our writings: nor let it be lawful for novelty by private judgment to tear up antiquity." These last words of Baronius please me above all the rest.

[14] But utterly improbable is the opinion, or rather the suspicion, concerning a retractation, but not against his writings, which were accused by many. since his doctrine, as long as he lived, was never accused. The Most Eminent author had premised, "Since nevertheless the judgments of the Fathers concerning his writings remain unmoved." This indeed is most fair, but it will be permissible after Baronius to investigate the judgments of the Fathers concerning the doctrine of Faustus, and thus perhaps we shall find that they are less hostile to Faustus than he believed. I see indeed that many among the moderns are accusers of Faustus, but that most of them scarcely know why they accuse him, and are carried away by prejudices alone. Thus Trithemius, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, page 236, wove such a eulogy for Faustus: "Faustus, from being abbot of the monastery of Lérins, bishop of Riez in Gaul, a man indeed learned and eloquent, but defiled by the Pelagian error, whence also his little works are reckoned among the apocrypha… At length, rebuked and amended by blessed Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, he abandoned the error and returned to the truth of the Catholic faith: in proof of which thing he published an excellent volume against his former errors, which he entitled On the Grace of God." Do you see, studious reader, Faustus accused as a Pelagian, and indeed by a learned man, who was treating of ecclesiastical writers? But for what cause is he accused? Trithemius himself did not know, since he praises the very Work on account of which he is traduced, as excellently Catholic and written after his conversion. We shall see Faustus assailed also by the authority of others, who were no better informed.

*. Of Lérins.

§ II. The Saint's native land, his mother, his studies, his eloquence, his monastic life at Lérins, his headship of the monastery.

[ ] Faustus, called both a Briton and a Gaul, perhaps born in Armorica. I shall answer the things which, after the retractation of Baronius, have been objected by others against the sanctity of Faustus. But that will be done more conveniently after his deeds have been set out. From these, therefore, I begin, and first from his native land, concerning which there is not full agreement among the moderns, because the ancients speak of it in different ways. St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, who was contemporary with St. Faustus, though younger in age, in Epistle 4 calls him "a Briton by birth, a man of Riez by dwelling." Sidonius likewise hints that he was a Briton, in book 9, Epistle 9, to Faustus concerning Riochatus, who was carrying his book to the Britons, saying: "He carries it back for you to your Britons." But by Facundus of Hermiane, against Mocianus or Mutianus, Faustus is called a Gaul. Besides, Possessor the bishop, in his Epistle to Pope Hormisdas, published in Labbe, volume 4, column [ ], treating of the book of this Faustus, says: "Of a certain Faustus, a Gaul by nation, bishop of the city of Riez." These things seem mutually contrary, unless perhaps he was from Gallic Britain, that is, Armorica: for thus he could be called both a Gaul and a Briton. This was the opinion of Sirmond, who on the alleged passage of Facundus says: "This is to be understood of the Gallic Britons settled above the Loire, as Sidonius has it elsewhere" (namely book 1, Epistle 7). "Therefore Facundus calls him a Gaul." He observes the same on the alleged Epistle of St. Avitus.

[16] This exposition of Sirmond so reconciles the praised writers Tillemont holds that the Britons migrated into Armorica later that we need convict none of them of error. For if he had been born in Gallic Britain, he could be called both a Briton and a Gaul. It labors, however, under a notable difficulty, since it is not sufficiently established whether the Britons fixed their seats in Gaul before the birth of St. Faustus, whose time of birth does not seem to be far from the close of the fourth century. And so Tillemont opposes himself to Sirmond, in volume 16, Note 1 on Faustus of Riez, arguing thus: "But it would be necessary to prove that the inhabitants of greater Britain had already crossed over into the Gauls before the birth of Faustus, that is, in all likelihood before the end of the fourth century; whereas the more learned think that they did not migrate thither except about the year 460." For this epoch of the migration he assigns Ussher, in the Antiquities of the British Churches, chapter 12, pages 421 and 422. But Tillemont says more from Ussher than Ussher himself intended. For Ussher in no way contends or proves that the Britons came into Gaul only about the year 460: but he says that no certain documents are had concerning the seats of the Britons in Gaul before the times of Childeric I; but that these are had in the time of Childeric, that is, about 460, in the Life of St. Gildas, given by us in volume 2 of January, page 960; in Gregory of Tours, book 2, chapter 18; in the council of Tours, held in the year 461; and finally in Sidonius, book 1, Epistle 7, and book 3, Epistle 9. From all these passages it is clearly proved that the Britons had seats in Gaul about the year 460: but nowhere is it said that they were then first, or a little before, brought over from Britain, so that from them the migration of the Britons cannot be fixed about the year 460, but must necessarily be fixed earlier.

[17] from Ussher; but the time of the migration of the Britons Ussher does indeed praise other writers, but less ancient ones, who say that the Britons fled into Gaul when the Saxons invaded Britain. But neither is the authority of those writers certain, and the Saxons began to attack Britain long before the year 460. For in the Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre, given by us at the thirty-first of July, chapter 6, there is reported a victory won over the Saxons by the Britons, which is to be fixed at the year 429, as is there proved in the preliminary Commentary, number 59. The same victory is reported at the twenty-ninth of July in the Life of St. Lupus of Troyes, who was present with St. Germanus at all these things, and with him obtained the victory by divine aid. Indeed our Bosch, in his preliminary observations on the Acts of St. Germanus, number 60, observes that irruptions of this sort by the Saxons into Britain were already frequent from the times of Valentinian I, that is, from the fourth century. Let us now suppose that those things are true which the praised Ussher recites from Einhard in this manner: "When the island of Britain had been invaded by the Angles and Saxons, a great part of its inhabitants, crossing the sea, occupied the regions of the Veneti and the Curiosolitae in the farthest bounds of Gaul." Let us believe for a while, I say, that this occasion of crossing over into Gaul is certain, which others praised in the same place also assert; even so the time of the first migration will remain uncertain.

[18] For we do not know whether all the Britons who fixed their seats in Gaul migrated together and at one time. seems uncertain, since not a few fix it in the fourth century: We do not know whether at the earlier irruptions of the Saxons in the fourth century many did not cross the sea, so as to withdraw themselves from the perils of war. We do not know, finally, whether some colony of Britons was not led into Gaul before the irruptions of the Saxons into Britain: and whether from that source it did not come about that other Britons, when the Saxons prevailed in Britain, fled rather to them than into another part of the Gauls or the Spains. That not a few writers stand for a colony of this sort the praised Ussher testifies, writing thus: "But that a colony of Britons was led over into Armorica by Constantius Chlorus is signified by Ralph Niger in his Chronicle, by his son Constantine the Great by William of Malmesbury, by Maximus the tyrant by Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Henry of Huntingdon, Gerald of Wales, Matthew Florilegus, and very many others of a later age." From these things the studious reader will perceive that the migration of the Britons into Gaul is not to be fixed about the year 460, since at that time they are mentioned as dwelling there, not as recently brought over: he will further understand that it seems altogether doubtful whether they first migrated thither in the fifth century or in the fourth. Concerning their crossing nothing is read in the History of St. Gregory of Tours, who was writing in a neighboring province, nothing in Sidonius or the other writers of the fifth century: which may seem strange, if they crossed over about the middle of the fifth century, as some hold.

[19] Wherefore I can establish nothing certain either concerning the time [and so it is doubtful whether he was born in the island of Britain or in Armorica.] at which the Britons crossed over into Armorica — concerning which perhaps more will have to be investigated at the twenty-first of October, under St. Ursula — or concerning the native land of St. Faustus, whether he was from the island of Britain or from Armorica. For the writers who name him partly a Gaul, partly a Briton, certainly favor Armorica more, since thus they are best reconciled. The words of Sidonius, who in book 1, Epistle 7, had already mentioned the Britons settled above the Loire, favor Sirmond still more, when in book 9, Epistle 9, to Faustus he speaks thus: "I have read your volumes, which Riochatus, prelate and monk, and twice a pilgrim of this world, carries back for you to your Britons." For it is more probable that Riochatus had set out for Armorica than for the island of Britain; both because Riochatus would be using a sufficiently direct route, if from the city of Riez by way of Clermont in Auvergne he was setting out for the Britons settled above the Loire, and because the Saxons had prevailed in the island of Britain, so that he could with difficulty have reached the Britons who had remained in the island. But on the other hand we admit that it is uncertain whether the Britons had seats in Gaul before the birth of Faustus. And if they had not, which seems equally uncertain, Faustus will have been born in the island of Britain, and perhaps left it with his mother. For that his mother afterwards dwelt with him in the city of Riez we shall presently see.

[20] Of the mother of St. Faustus, Sidonius makes mention in these words in Poem 16, The Saint's mother long surviving; his brother Memorius, a presbyter. which is a thanksgiving to Faustus, then bishop of Riez and heavy with age, so that we may understand that she dwelt in the same city, and was venerable both in character and in great old age. Sidonius also counted it a great benefit that he had been led to her by St. Faustus, preferring that to the benefits of his mentioned before, when he sings thus:

Yet above all these things this [ ] stands foremost, that you willed That I should approach also the holy threshold of your holy mother. I grew stiff, I confess, conscious of myself, and suddenly Reverence tinged with fear the face of me as I did homage: Nor did I tremble otherwise than if by chance Israel Were leading me to Rebecca, or the long-haired Samuel to Hannah.

St. Faustus seems also to have had a brother, and he a presbyter, by name Memorius. Certainly in his Epistle to Ruricius he writes: "Your fellow-servant, and especially your admirer, my brother, the presbyter Memorius, greets you most reverently along with me."

[21] Faustus in his youth deeply imbued with the studies of eloquence In what place Faustus gave his labor to letters in his youth I nowhere find. But it is certain that he did this diligently, and that he was excellently imbued with the laws of eloquence and of philosophy. Certainly Sidonius extols the eloquence of Faustus with wondrous praises, and proclaims his zeal for philosophy. It will be enough to have brought forward a few things in this place, since other things too are to be brought forward in their own places. In book 9, Epistle 9, Sidonius, where he had read the books of Faustus, first marvelously celebrates the style of the writer, and then adds: "In short, the discourse of one absent, so far as we judge, cannot grow greater, unless perhaps something be added to these by the voice, the hand, the movement, the artful modesty of the Author speaking face to face." He seems to add these things because he had heard him speaking before an assembly. Then he goes on thus: "Therefore, endowed with these gifts of mind and of letters, you have wedded to yourself, my lord Bishop, a beautiful woman, but such a one as marries with Deuteronomy's approval: whom you, while still a young man, having caught sight of her amid hostile troops, and having fallen in love with her there in the battle line of the opposing party, in no way repulsed by the warriors who stood in the way, you carried off with the conquering arm of desire: namely philosophy, who, forcibly taken out from the number of the sacrilegious arts, her hair of superfluous religion shorn and the eyebrow of secular knowledge, and the wrinkles of her very ancient garments cut away — that is, the twistings of a gloomy dialectic which veil what is false and unlawful in morals — now purified, has joined her limbs to you in a mystic embrace." By this figured manner of speech he signifies that Faustus had been imbued with a plainly Christian philosophy, purged of the vices of heathenism, that is, with the best art of reasoning and writing.

[22] and excellently trained in the art of discourse, Of her he goes on thus: "She has long since from your earliest years been your handmaid, she has been the inseparable companion at your side, whether you were exercising yourself in the wrestling-schools of the city or wearing yourself down in remote solitudes: she is the partner of the lecture-hall, she of the monastery; with you she renounces worldly, with you she preaches heavenly disciplines. Whoever shall have challenged you, joined to her in this marriage, will feel that the Academy of Plato serves the Church of Christ, and that you philosophize more nobly… and moreover that you do not feed a flowing head of hair, nor glory in cloak or staff as in sophistic insignia, nor affect a pride drawn from a distinction of garments… Nay rather, whoever contends with you will find that Stoics, Cynics, Peripatetics, heresiarchs are shaken by their own arms and by their own engines. For their followers, if they resist Christian doctrine and sense, presently, bound by you as their master with homebred entanglements, will be netted headlong in their own toils, while the hooked syllogisms of your proposition catch the slippery tongue of those who shuffle, and while you rather tie up slippery questions with categorical coils, after the manner of keen physicians, who, when reason compels, make a remedy against poisons even out of a serpent."

[23] perhaps for some time he pleaded causes in the courts. I pass over very many other things concerning the eloquence of Faustus, which Sidonius prefers to his own in various places and extols with such great praises that I have found no one's writings so praised by him in every respect. Tillemont, under Faustus, article 1, recites several of Sidonius's eulogies of the eloquence of Faustus: but he observes that Sidonius is liberal in praising, which is true. I have not found, however, that all men indiscriminately were praised by Sidonius for eloquence. Then Tillemont himself subjoins from the writings of Faustus his own judgment concerning his style, which — that I may say nothing more severe — he could have omitted without loss. For Latin writers do not await a judgment concerning the greater or lesser elegance of the Latin tongue from an author who has used no other than his own vernacular tongue in writing. For me it will be enough to have brought forward the judgment of Sidonius; further judgment concerning the style of Faustus I leave to individuals who know the rules of eloquence, and have turned over eloquent writers enough to be able to judge of that matter. Noris, in his Pelagian History, book 2, chapter XI, from the words alleged above, "whether you were exercising yourself in the wrestling-schools of the city," suspects that Faustus had earlier pleaded causes in the courts. This suspicion is not improbable, since the words can be understood in that sense. Rightly, however, he says only "I suspect"; since the words can be expounded no less of exercise in the schools. And so it is uncertain whether St. Faustus came straight from the studies of eloquence and philosophy to the monastery of Lérins, or whether he was first engaged for some time in causes at the bar.

[24] Uncertain also is the time at which the Saint betook himself to Lérins. He enters the monastery of Lérins, Tillemont indeed, article 2, says that Faustus did not come to Lérins before the end of the year 426, if he is the author of the Homily on St. Honoratus. But we shall judge that Homily not to be Faustus's in §15, just as Tillemont himself also judged it not his, so that his observation is plainly useless. And so I do not doubt that Faustus came to Lérins under St. Honoratus, founder and first abbot of the monastery of Lérins, since seven years after him he was made abbot. The year in which he came is unknown. By conjecture it can be said that he came about 420.

[25] For in the year 433 or 434 he was made abbot, St. Maximus having been promoted to the bishopric of Riez. of which he then becomes the third abbot, In the Homily on St. Maximus, in the Library of the Fathers, volume 6, page 655, Maximus is said to have presided over the monastery of Lérins first after St. Honoratus: and he presided for seven full years, as is said in the same place at page 654. These things are entirely certain, since St. Faustus, his successor, composed the Homily that has been praised. It remains therefore to inquire in what year St. Honoratus was translated from the abbacy of Lérins to the bishopric of Arles. The death of his predecessor Patroclus is fixed in the Chronicle of Prosper at the year 426, from which it is rightly inferred that St. Honoratus succeeded as that same year was drawing to its close, and that St. Maximus was consequently made abbot of Lérins in the same year. And so the seven full years during which he presided over Lérins lead to the year 433, or, if perhaps some months were added, they can lead to the year 434, so that it does not seem to be doubted that St. Faustus, who succeeded St. Maximus, began the headship of the monastery of Lérins in the year 433 or 434. That Faustus was the successor of Maximus, Sidonius most clearly declares in a Poem to be recited hereafter, and of that matter no one doubts. He was therefore the third abbot of that most celebrated monastery, after St. Honoratus and St. Maximus, whom he had had as masters of the monastic life. In Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe, volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column [ ], Caprasius is also placed before them, but rather as the master of the first abbot St. Honoratus than as abbot of the monastery.

[26] With what notable virtues St. Faustus proved himself in the monastery when monastic discipline anyone will easily be able to conjecture from the headship conferred upon him at that time in which the fervor of monastic discipline was most flourishing there. The Sainte-Marthe just praised brings forward various things to this purpose. From him I here transfer only the words of St. Eucherius of Lyons, because they were written not long before the headship was entrusted to Faustus. "And indeed," he says, "to all the places of the desert which are enlightened by the retirement of the pious I owe reverence; yet with a special honor I embrace my Lérins, which received me, cast up from the shipwrecks of a stormy world, in her outpoured and most loving arms. Those who came from that burning heat of the age she gently led in beneath her shades, that there, panting, they might take breath again beneath the inner shade of the Lord. Gushing with waters, green with herbs, glittering with flowers, delightful to sight and to smell, she shows herself a paradise to those who possess her, even as she possesses one. Worthy that she should be founded in heavenly disciplines, with Honoratus as her author; worthy that with such institutions she should obtain so great a father, radiant with the vigor of an Apostolic spirit and the honor of his countenance. Worthy that, receiving him, she should so shine forth. Worthy that she should nourish most excellent monks, and bring forth priests to be sought after.

[27] was most flourishing, "She now holds his successor Maximus, famous by name, because after him he deserved to be enrolled. She had Lupus of reverend name, who brought back to us that wolf out of the tribe of Benjamin" (St. Paul). "She had his brother Vincentius, conspicuous with the inward splendor of gems. She now possesses Caprasius, venerable for his gravity, the equal of the ancient Saints. She now has those holy servants[*] who, in cells set apart, brought the Egyptian fathers into our Gauls. What companies and assemblies of Saints did I see there, O good Jesus! Precious alabaster vessels among them breathed fragrance with a sweet ointment; everywhere the odor of life was exhaled; they displayed by the habit of the outward man the face of the inward; built up in charity, cast down in humility, most gentle in piety, most firm in hope, quick in obedience, silent when met, serene of countenance — by their very contemplation, in a word, they show a host of angelic quiet." Such was the monastery of Lérins when St. Faustus lived in it as a monk; such, while he was set over it.

[28] which Faustus likewise preserved there. Such was the discipline which he preserved in it, and so great the fervor, as is gathered from St. Caesarius of Arles, who dwelt at Lérins after St. Faustus had been promoted to the episcopate. For St. Caesarius, praised there also, celebrates the congregation of Lérins with the highest eulogies too, and among other things says: "O happy and blessed dwelling of this island, where daily by such holy and spiritual gains the glory of the Lord is increased, and by such great losses the wickedness of the devil is diminished. Blessed, I say, and happy is the island of Lérins, which, though it may seem small and level, is nevertheless known to have sent innumerable mountains to heaven." Again, concerning Lérins: "Those whom she receives as sons she renders fathers; and those whom she nurses as little ones she renders great; those whom she takes in as tyrants, she makes kings. For all, whomsoever that happy and blessed dwelling has taken up, she has been wont to raise on the wings of charity to the lofty summits of the virtues in Christ."

. Otherwise, old men*.

§ III. Some matters concerning the Saint's deeds in the monastery, and during his headship of it, are examined.

[ ] The Saint continues in the monastery to give himself to studies, That the Saint did not abstain in the monastic life from the studies of letters is hinted by the words of Sidonius alleged at number 22, in which he says that philosophy was the inseparable companion at his side even in that time in which he was wearing himself down in remote solitudes. It is probable, however, that in the monastery he was chiefly occupied with the studies of the sacred Scriptures, unless perhaps he entered the monastery at so tender an age that he had not yet sufficiently grasped the logical disciplines for arguing rightly. Gennadius, who could have known St. Faustus well, says of him: "A man sufficiently intent upon the divine Scriptures." Sidonius too, in book 9, Epistle 3, testifies that on various occasions he stood by Faustus as he preached at Lyons, and from the sermons heard most eagerly he affirms that he was most learned in both disciplines, the spiritual namely and the forensic. For this cause he exhorts the Saint to write Works, in these words: "It remains, my lord Bishop, that it is your part to apply yourself enough to Works of saving and singular doctrine which shall live on. For no one who listens to you teaching and disputing

learns to speak more than to do things worthy of praise." The very Works of Faustus abundantly show that he was much versed in the sacred Letters. And the Saint's moral teaching, by which he first trained his monks and afterwards the people committed to him excellently unto virtue, is exceedingly beautiful, as the alleged words of Sidonius also hint.

[30] How great was his assiduity and fervor in praying, Sidonius hints in the same Epistle, he is frequent in prayers and fervent, commending himself to his prayers in these words: "Nay rather, endow my soul, ill conscious to itself and trembling hour by hour at the recollected debts of a life deserving punishment, with those most frequent and most powerful supports of your prayers — you who are skilled in the prayers of the islands, which you brought over from the wrestling-school of the hermit congregation, and from the senate of the cell-dwellers of Lérins, into the city too whose church's sacred things you oversee" (that is, of which you are bishop), "changed in nothing from an abbot by becoming a priest: since indeed under the pretext of a new dignity you have not relaxed the rigor of the old discipline. By these prayers, therefore, most efficacious, as I said above, obtain that the Lord be our portion," and so forth. More concerning his frequency in praying I do not heap up here, since those things are to be recited in their own places.

[31] That the austerity of St. Faustus's life was also very great is already in some way hinted by the words given, distinguished by austerity of life which affirm "the rigor of the old discipline," and by the others at number 29, "wearing himself down in remote solitudes." Nevertheless Sidonius sets out the exercises of the anchoretic life more fully in Poem XVI to Faustus. That poem was indeed written to Faustus as bishop and as an old man. It contains, however, various things which Faustus practiced rather when he was a monk or an abbot than while he was living in the city as Prelate — although even at that time, meaning to undertake similar things, he could have withdrawn to Lérins for a season. The poet, ingeniously, so that he may be able to set out the Saint's deeds, testifies that he does not know where he is or what he is doing, and heaps up the things which he was wont to do as monk, as abbot, as bishop, so as to conclude at last elegantly that he is like his predecessors SS. Honoratus and Maximus, and fills the measure of names so great, singing thus:

Whatever you do, in whatever place you are, be ever to me Faustus, Ever Honoratus, and ever Maximus too.

Whether the flaming sandbanks and inhospitable wastes, Whether a marsh green with mire, or rocks black in their recess Hold you, more uncultivated, where, the sun withdrawn, Hollow caverns keep their long-lived darkness; Whether the Alp, stretched out on sheer crags, Trembles at you, Anchorite, as you sip brief sleeps upon the icy turf — Which Alp, though it bear frosts, Never tames the warmth conceived of Christ. Whither now Elijah, now John bids you go, Now the two Macarii, now the hero Paphnutius, Now Or, now Ammon, now Sarmata, now Hilarion, Now Antony, naked, calls you in that tunic Which the kindly hand of his master made from the leaves of the palm. Or whether Lérins has embraced you, her ancient parent, Where you, already broken, in place of great repose often Come to serve the disciples, and scarcely take Leisure for sleep, scarcely cooked foods; abstaining from wine You lead your age, and paint your fastings with psalms interwoven.

[33] and notable for the sobriety of his diet and for fasting. The passages alleged, as I said, for the most part hint rather what the Saint did while he followed the solitary life than while he was bishop. The earlier ones hint that the Saint, from love of solitude and of freer prayer, sometimes passed his time in flaming sandbanks and horrid wastes, that is, in places made horrid by burning sand and uninhabited; sometimes by marshes, sometimes among rocky hills and in the dark caverns of mountains; sometimes on sheer mountains, which the poet brings in as trembling, and there snatched brief sleeps on the icy ground — the cold, however, which reigns on the mountain summits, not availing to overcome the warmth of divine love: and that he sought out places so horrid after the example of Elijah, of John the Baptist, of the two Macarii, and of the other anchorites. These things without doubt Faustus practiced rather as a monk or anchorite than as an old man and bishop. But he subjoins that at that time he sometimes came to Lérins to serve the monks, and scarcely allowed himself leisure to snatch sleep, scarcely was willing to take cooked foods, abstained from wine, and was given over to fastings and to the chanting of psalms. If he did these things as bishop and broken with age, anyone will easily be able to conjecture what austerities he pursued as a monk, a young man, and stronger in strength.

[34] [He seems to have been a companion of St. Maximus when the latter was in hiding on account of his election to a bishopric,] In the Homily on St. Maximus, which is certainly Faustus's, he relates that St. Maximus, while he was abbot of Lérins, was sought out for the bishopric of Fréjus, but fled to the thickets of the woods. Faustus himself seems to have been with him while he lay hid, since he speaks thus: "As the crowds of the faithful rush in, all things are winnowed, the deep secret places of the desert are ransacked. Beneath the bare vault of heaven he is beaten by the rains of three days and three nights, as I myself am witness." These last words hint that he was with him as he lay hid, exposed to the rains. St. Maximus escaped on that occasion; but he could not escape when, not long after, he was elected to the see of Riez, although at that time also he had fled even farther. Moreover, in the said Homily in praise of St. Maximus, St. Faustus pronounced things which can equally be said of Faustus himself. He celebrates St. Maximus because he had left his native land and all things, that he might come to Lérins — even as he himself had left his native land, having set out much farther from it, and came to Lérins. He says to the people of Riez concerning St. Maximus: "What riches did that man gather to be carried back to you and to his native land, what treasures for your souls, while he was smelted in that furnace of humiliation" (in the monastery)? "What ornaments, what necklaces did he fashion? For it was for you that that athlete of Christ sweated in that contest; for you, while he raised himself up,[*] he bore fruit; sowing there for himself, he was gathering for you; seeking for himself, he was unwittingly acquiring for you," and so forth. And presently: "That most excellent man was taught there that he might teach here: enriched there, that he might lend at interest here; enlightened there, that he might shine here; purified there, that he might sanctify here: and that he might be able here to exercise the healing of confession, there he sought out the spices and pigments of the virtues." All these things fit Faustus himself also.

[35] He pursues also many things concerning the men of Lérins rightly trained by St. Maximus. But again all those things can be said of Faustus, and having been made abbot, he excellently instructed the monks. who presided over the men of Lérins much longer, and of whom we still have several Homilies delivered to monks. Hence Sidonius, praised at number 29, hints at the usefulness of his sermons. On account of his Sermons to the monks there can be said of him what he said of St. Maximus: "How many, in that desert — as we read of Joshua son of Nun — did this most practiced vanquisher of spiritual wickednesses, how many nations did he destroy in the hearts of the converted? How many nations of invisible adversaries, which were striving to shut Israel out of the kingdom, did he extinguish, laboring in a man, as in a holy land, to slay the passions as an enemy, and, as the people of God, to bring in and to plant the virtues; and, as with knives of stone, that is, with the strong precepts of Christ, to cut back concupiscences and to circumcise pleasures, and no less by example than by command to arm the breast of his soldiers, and to kindle it to a longing for the heavenly inheritance?" These things could be proved more amply from the Saint's own homilies. But among the learned there is no agreement about the Homilies to be attributed to St. Faustus: for some attribute more to him, others fewer. And so, since a lengthier disputation is necessary, we shall give this concerning the Homilies toward the end of the Commentary.

[36] Of the little Works which Gennadius attributes to St. Faustus, that seems the first in time Of Gratus the deacon, consulting him about his own little work, which is commemorated in these words: "There is an Epistle of his published in the form of a little book to a certain deacon, Gratus by name, who, departing from the Catholic faith, went off into Nestorian impiety. In which Epistle he admonishes him to believe that holy Mary the Virgin did not bear a mere man who afterwards took on Divinity, but true God and true man." This little Work was published in the Library of the Fathers, volume 8 of the Lyons edition, page 553, under the name of Faustus of Riez. The inscription of the Epistle is: "To the holy lord and brother most bound to him in Christ, Gratus the deacon, Faustus." From the course of the little Work it is gathered that Gratus, whom I find elsewhere called both Graecus and Gregorius, led a solitary life. He had sent his own ill-digested little work to St. Faustus, that he might consult him. He for that cause thus begins: "Honored by your office, honored by your judgment, called forth by affection, I shall speak with you in sincere humility, in kindly liberty, in charity unfeigned, in the word of truth." Presently, however, he shows that he does not answer very willingly, because it is about matters so profound, "and exceeding," he says, "both my powers and yours." A little after he hints that he was not then of very advanced age, saying: "But in the consultation upon so great a matter, in which you have left the royal road far behind, you ought to have questioned some men of proved knowledge, older in learning and in age, whom you could more easily believe." And so that Epistle seems to have been written before his episcopate.

[37] The error of Gratus was twofold: the one Nestorian, in that he was unwilling that the most blessed Virgin Mary be called the Mother of God; he refutes his errors and instructs him. the other Eutychian, by which he attributed only one nature to Christ. Each error he learnedly refutes, the first as the Nestorian heresy, the other as an error against which the Arians had not guarded. From this it is gathered that the little Work was written before the Eutychian heresy was known, or at least condemned: which can broadly be fixed about the year 440, when Faustus was abbot. Tillemont strives to prove this by another argument, alleging two modes of speaking which he does not believe accurate: but that these are to be explained in a sound sense the whole disputation hints, nor does Tillemont deny it. At the end Faustus admonishes Gratus to abandon his errors, giving him this counsel: "And if you desire to escape perils, not those rushing on from without but those conceived within, know that nothing is more useful to you than that you should fortify your life under any other most approved abbot, and hand over your own wills to the laws of an elder. And, that you may be able to escape the snares of the adversary, I have thought that you[*] should keep back that little writing itself, nay rather suppress it, lest it come further into the hand and the conscience of some other Catholic who might love you less. And from this you will be able to recognize that the inmost parts of your heart are sound, if, still as it were free, you shall have listened carefully and willingly to me, your reverencer, humbly and lovingly admonishing you. Before the question, the persuasion will seem to have been incautious; after the answer, the intention will appear inexcusable. But if amid these things you shall have believed that anything is to be laid to my charge, who desire your soul to be healed by austere rather than by sweet things, remember that the wounds of charity are preferred to the kisses of one who flatters ill." Thus far Faustus, certain of whose sayings Claudianus Mamertus afterwards attacked, but wrongly, as I shall show when another little Work is treated of, which the same Claudianus refuted. Whether Gratus came to his senses, or remained in his errors, we do not know.

[38] The Saint is honored by St. Hilary of Arles, St. Caprasius was still living when St. Faustus

began to administer the monastery of Lérins, so that he certainly did not die before the year 434, even though in the Life given by us at the first of June his death is fixed about 430; but he died in an uncertain year, while St. Faustus was administering the headship of the monastery. St. Hilary of Arles visited him while he was ill, together with St. Maximus of Riez and Theodore, in all likelihood of Fréjus, who on that occasion honored not only St. Caprasius but also Faustus the abbot, as in the Life of St. Hilary, given at the fifth of May, a contemporary author relates at number 12 in these words: "In what manner also the servants of God ought to be honored, he did not deny to posterity, to be wholesomely imitated by spiritual proofs. For when he had learned by sure messengers that St. Caprasius — living, as he himself was wont to say, in an angelic conversation in the islands — was worn out by bodily infirmity, he hurried forth with swift haste to meet him, and sitting at his feet, with lowly humility but with famous virtue, he begged that he would remember him… In the same place, at that time, he so honored St. Faustus, at once presbyter and abbot, being foreknowing of things to come, that he compelled him to sit in the middle between himself and the holy priests, Theodore and Maximus." The same is reported less accurately in the Life of St. Caprasius, written later.

[39] he instructs the brother of St. Sidonius: St. Faustus had the brother of St. Sidonius Apollinaris commended to his care, which in all likelihood also happened while he was set over the men of Lérins. Sidonius acknowledges this as the first cause for giving him thanks, in Poem XVI to Faustus, singing thus:

This, therefore, is the first cause or occasion of my praises, That my brother's modesty, while his slippery age rolls on, Is proved to have been preserved with you by the gifts of the Lord, And with no faltering of repute. That good, however great it be, Looks back to you; a reward will be owed to him, And he to you. Let the praise be his, if he was unwilling to fall: For the fact that he could not fall redounds wholly and by right to you.

The slippery, that is, the youthful age, in which the brother of Sidonius had been preserved by Faustus, suggests that he was preserved at Lérins, although he could have followed him to Riez also.

[40] Another and less honest guest Jerome Vignier attributes to Faustus the abbot, in the Supplement to the Works of St. Augustine, volume 2, toward the end of the Preface, writing thus concerning Julian the Pelagian: "Driven out therefore again from all Italy, an improbable fiction about Julian the Pelagian being received at Lérins. it came into his mind to try Gaul. And so he landed at Lérins, where, received by Faustus with an untimely charity and cherished for several months, he propagated his poison, not without great harm to Faustus himself: which we shall relate in its own place, if God grant strength and years; and that with sure proofs, both from Fulgentius and from others: and we shall assert many things of this sort which are hidden from many." It is an insipid little tale, for which no suitable reason has ever been brought forward. Nor yet did it displease Tillemont, under Faustus, article 2: but at this I am not at all surprised; for neither have I found that other calumnies against Faustus, and those atrocious ones, displeased the praised writer. Garnier, on Marius Mercator, volume 1, page 150, refuted the wholly improbable assertion by various arguments; nor was Tillemont ignorant of this, since he brought forward the same assertion in volume 13, under St. Augustine, and there assigns the passage of Garnier. He says indeed in the same place that the things which Garnier alleged for refuting the fact are of no great weight; nor yet did he attempt to dissolve Garnier's arguments. I refer studious readers to Garnier himself. For if Vignier's assertion could have been proved, we should long since have had it proved from Fulgentius and others. But if it can no more be proved than the dreams which creep upon a man as he dozes; if it lacks all likelihood, all probability, there was not even need of so studious a refutation as that which the praised Garnier gave.

[41] About the later years in which St. Faustus administered the monastery of Lérins, The holy Abbot has a dispute with Theodore the bishop, he had grave difficulties with Theodore of Fréjus, in whose diocese it was established. Concerning the beginning of that controversy there is no certainty, nor do we sufficiently know what progress it made, and about what matter the dispute was. From the decree of the council, however, by which it was ended, we understand that Theodore of Fréjus exacted more subjection from the monks of Lérins than his predecessor St. Leontius had claimed for himself; and that in all likelihood he wished that it should be lawful for him to ordain as clerics whomsoever he wished out of the monks. To these things St. Faustus opposed himself, and Theodore took this ill. For this cause the council of Arles was held, gathered by Ravennius of Arles between the year 449, in which Ravennius was made bishop, and the year 461, in which, as they hold, Ravennius had died. But the end of Ravennius is not so certain as his beginning. He was certainly bishop from the year 449: but it is uncertain whether he sat many years, since we find no deeds of his which certainly happened after the year 451. Joseph Antelmi, at the end of his Dissertation on the Beginnings of the Church of Fréjus, published the Acts of the council of Arles with which we are dealing: and there, at page 210, he inquires more closely into its epoch, and thinks the council is to be fixed in the year 450 or 451. His chief argument is that he believes that in the council of Arles some things were enacted in favor of the monks which would not have been decreed after that of Chalcedon, held in the year 451. Other arguments are added, which may be seen in Antelmi. His opinion, although I would not dare to call it certain, I suspect to be true; and to embracing it as probable I am moved also by the beginning of St. Faustus's episcopate, which I think is to be fixed about the year 452, as I shall presently say.

[42] This is established, that the bishops were summoned by Ravennius by letters, on account of which a council is held at Arles, printed in Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], of which this is the beginning: "As often as some member labors under any kind of infirmity, it cannot be but that the other members also of the same body suffer with it. And therefore the case which had arisen between the holy bishop Theodore, and the holy Valerian or the holy Maximus, likewise bishops, and the abbot Faustus, and also the rest of the brethren of the island of Lérins — without doubt all of us who are one in Christ cannot put it off, unless we act in such a way that it be cured and wiped away." From the passages alleged, Valerian and Maximus seem to have stood for the monastery. Thirteen bishops came together, among whom several were illustrious for sanctity.

[43] in which The names of the bishops may be seen in the same place, column [ ], as also their entire decree, from which I excerpt the chief points: "It has pleased us therefore… that, when all the things which had come into complaint had been carefully winnowed and discussed, our holy and most blessed brother Theodore the bishop should first be entreated by us that he would not suffer the scandal which had arisen — over which he himself, like us, was grievously grieving — to remain longer by being put off to another time, but would rather hasten to accept the remedies of satisfaction, and would receive the holy presbyter Faustus, abbot of the aforesaid monastery, pardon being granted for his fault, if there were any such, into his former peace with all the affection of charity, and would send him back with his own favor and charity to the island and the congregation committed to him by God's own dispensing. Nor should he thereafter either repeat in words or retain in mind anything of those things which he charged his brother Faustus with having done. Nay rather, as an old abbot and a bishop, he should perpetually afford him conference as a pious and necessary thing, and should most fully afford in the things themselves, wherever use required, those consolations to follow which he deigned to promise in words: yet claiming for himself only this, which his predecessor Leontius the bishop, of holy memory, had claimed — that is, that clerics and ministers of the altar be ordained by no one save by himself, or by him whom he shall have charged; that the chrism be looked for from none but himself; that if there be neophytes, they be confirmed by him; that clerics from abroad be not admitted to communion or to ministry without his order.

[44] the controversy is ended. "But let all the lay multitude of the monastery belong to the care of the abbot: nor let the bishop claim anything for himself out of it, or presume anything with regard to any cleric from it, unless at the abbot's request" (understand: to ordain, or something similar). "For this is full both of reason and of religion, that the clerics should look to the bishop's ordination with due subjection; but that the whole lay congregation of the monastery should belong to the sole and free ordering and disposing of its own abbot, whom it shall itself have chosen — the rule which was long since established by the founder of that monastery being kept in all things." These things are so favorable to the monastery of Lérins that it is not probable that St. Faustus sought or desired more. That he too was not seen as liable to fault is hinted by those words, "pardon being granted for his fault, if there be any such"; especially since a little after Faustus was promoted to the episcopate, as we shall presently see.

. Read excolit* cultivates.

. Read tuam* your.

§ IV. He becomes bishop of Riez: the integrity of his character in the episcopate: having set out for Rome, in the year 462 he attends a council under St. Hilarus the Pope.

[45] The Saint becomes bishop of Riez, After the council mentioned, in an uncertain year, St. Faustus was promoted to the episcopate of Riez, succeeding St. Maximus, in whose place he had earlier been substituted as abbot of Lérins. Therefore Sidonius says that he was twice the successor of St. Maximus, in the Poem XVI praised before. For, indicating that St. Faustus was wont to come from time to time to Lérins while he was bishop, and to set before the monks the illustrious examples of the Saints who had lived there, he expresses those things in these words:

Showing to the brethren how many mountains that level island Has sent to heaven: what was the holy life of Caprasius the old man, And of Lupus the young; what grace remained with father Honoratus; who was that Maximus, Whose city and monks you, as prelate and abbot, Twice as successor govern, and so forth.

They had all been monks of Lérins together with St. Faustus. Others have already been mentioned. But Lupus, drawn to the episcopate while young, is St. Lupus of Troyes, whose Acts have been illustrated at the twenty-ninth of July. Of St. Maximus, on whose account I recited the verses, Faustus first received the monks to be ruled as abbot, then the city as prelate.

[46] Baronius, at the year 472, number 18, believed that the promotion of Faustus to the episcopate was to be fixed about that same year. not about the year 472, But that chronology wanders far astray, since he was bishop at least before the year 462. Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe, in volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column 391, fixes the death of St. Maximus his predecessor about the year 460, and consequently the beginning of Faustus's episcopate. This opinion is certainly less distant from the truth. Yet the conjecture of Tillemont pleases me more, who in Note 3 on Faustus suspects that Faustus's episcopate is to be begun from about the year 456. The reason is that in Epistle XI of St. Hilarus the Pope, in volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], he is named ninth among twenty bishops. For if the order of the times at which each was promoted to his see is preserved there, he who was ninth among twenty had been bishop not a few years. Now that Epistle is of the year 464, in which he had held the episcopate eight years, if he had been promoted in the year 456.

[47] If this argument of Tillemont has any force;

the beginning of St. Faustus's episcopate seems to be fixed even earlier. but rather about 452. For, given the order in which he is reckoned among the twenty bishops, he could easily have been bishop for twelve years or more before the year 464. There is added the fact that he follows first after St. Veranus of Vence, who was bishop from the year 451, since he then wrote to St. Leo the Pope, as was said at the tenth of September under St. Veranus. Nothing likewise stands in the way of St. Faustus's having been able to be promoted to the see in the year 451 or 452. For the last mention of St. Maximus is made in the council of Arles, of which I spoke at number 41, that it was held between the year 449 and 461. If therefore the council was held at the end of that very year 449, and in the following year 450 St. Maximus died, Faustus could have been promoted in the same year. Or if each of these things happened a year or two later, he could have been promoted in the year 452. And so, all things considered, I should prefer to fix the beginning of his episcopate about the year 452 rather than later, until some more certain mark of time be brought forward.

[48] [The holy Prelate speaks humbly of himself, but is celebrated with wondrous praises] St. Faustus, in the Homily on St. Maximus, along with the praise of the latter speaks humbly of himself, addressing the people of Riez: "Deservedly may that island of Lérins reckon herself to your account" (that is, believe you bound to her) "for this one and only gift" (of St. Maximus having been given), "although she blush much for another." Tillemont, in article 3, thus takes up the humble Man's saying about himself: "I fear that he speaks the truth." But that fear is empty. Certainly St. Sidonius, who knew Faustus better, in no way feared it, when in book 9, in Epistle 9, to Faustus himself he wrote thus: "For who could follow your footsteps with an equal step, to whom alone it has been given to speak better than you have learned, to live better than you speak. Wherefore all good men will deservedly celebrate you as most blessed, and that above all men, in your own day: whose life has doubly shone forth both by your words and by your deeds, so that when indeed the right hand has already numbered your years, you may depart — proclaimed by your own age, to be longed for by another — praiseworthy in both kinds of action, about to leave yourself to strangers and your works to those nearest you." These men, meanwhile, I shall believe rather than Tillemont.

[49] by St. Sidonius, who reckons up his notable That the Saint's character was not changed by his new dignity is clear from the words of Sidonius given at number 30: "Changed in nothing from an abbot by becoming a priest: since indeed under the pretext of a new dignity you have not relaxed the rigor of the old discipline." That his fervor in prayer was likewise the same, Sidonius asserts in the same place; nay, and an equal love of solitude, and like exercises of the eremitic life, as may be seen in the part of Poem 16 given at number 32 — although the Saint is to be believed to have undertaken those things more frequently in the monastic life, more rarely in the episcopate, and there chiefly for the sake of renewing the fervor of the spirit by pious exercises of that kind of solitary life. For that he was most diligent in the episcopal offices, many things hint. Concerning virtues worthy of a holy Prelate, Sidonius has moreover sung a few things briefly in the praised Poem, feigning to be ignorant of what he was doing, in order to review the things which he was wont to do in turn. That he was a protector of the lesser and the humble against the arrogance of the powerful, by teaching them to despise the vanity of the world, these verses perhaps suggest:

Whether the people committed to you holds you; and the lesser man dares, With you in the midst, to scorn the swollen ways of the greater.

Perhaps also the poet wished to hint that the younger men were taught by the Saint not to imitate the ambition, pride, and arrogance of their elders, but to love modesty and humility, not to pursue honors and dignities, and to spurn all worldly things as vain and soon to pass away. That the Saint frequently inculcated these things we learn from his Homilies.

[50] virtues, The following verses testify to the mercy of St. Faustus in feeding the poor, the sick, pilgrims, and those held in prison, and in burying the dead, even with his own hands:

Whether you anxiously care by what food the sick man, Or by what the pilgrim, may live, and what may feed also him Whose slippery legs the prison wastes beneath the fetter; Or whether, distracted rather in mind over funerals to be performed, If the livid bones of a dead pauper turn green, You yourself, undisgusted, bear the corpse to the tomb.

Finally Sidonius proclaims his care of teaching the people before an assembly, in these words:

Whether the busy throng stands round you on the conspicuous steps Of the venerable altar, about to preach, That it may drink with its ears the medicine of the law expounded — Whatever you do, in whatever place you are, be ever to me Faustus, Ever Honoratus, and ever Maximus too.

If he was a diligent imitator of SS. Honoratus and Maximus, as Sidonius hints; if he had always been faustus favorable, always honoratus honored, always maximus greatest, as he wished at the same time to hint; if not Sidonius alone, but the other bishops of the Gauls too believed him such, as we shall see in the course of this — there was surely no reason why the men of Lérins should blush for the gift given to the people of Riez in Faustus, as the disparager of praises so great, Tillemont, would have it.

[51] That the sermons of St. Faustus were at once eloquent and useful and his learned and useful sermons. is clear from several passages of Sidonius already given. Again he speaks of them in book 9, Epistle 3, and alleges his own ears as witnesses. "For although," he says, "I have heard your preachings — now unpremeditated, now, when reason had demanded it, worked out by lamplight — as a hoarse applauder, then especially when, in the weekly festivals of the dedicated church of Lyons, you were entreated at the request of your most sacred colleagues to deliver the address. There we surrounded you, preaching something midway between the spiritual and the forensic rules, since indeed you were most learned in both disciplines, with our understandings alike raised up and our ears bent toward you — doing thereby too little for our desire, because you had satisfied our judgment." From these things we have it that he was asked to preach even in another province by the bishops; whence it is established that the judgment of all concerning his preachings was favorable. But that Sidonius attributes to Faustus a certain middle kind of speaking between the spiritual and the forensic, he seems to do because in his Homilies neither ecclesiastical piety, nor the authority of the sacred Letters, nor moral teaching is lacking; nor forensic elegance or eloquence. Concerning their usefulness he presently subjoins: "For no one who listens to you teaching and disputing learns to speak more than to do things worthy of praise."

[52] With magnificent eulogies too did Ruricius, bishop of Limoges, adorn St. Faustus, He is adorned with like praises by Ruricius of Limoges. but I shall transfer only a few here, meaning to recite others afterwards in their place. The first Epistle to Faustus in the order of the printing, in the Library of the Fathers, volume 8, page 559, Ruricius begins in this manner: "Long since, my lord, venerable and most blessed priest, did I come to know you, as a most celebrated report proclaimed you. Long since, the longing of a pious love having been poured in, do I behold you with those eyes of the heart to which you deign to write: but nonetheless I hasten to see you with bodily eyes also; if in any way I may be able, with your intercession, to break asunder the chains of my sins, and, having received the wings of that dove, to fly away from the snares of the hunters: and, placed with you, to rest in the law of the Lord," and so forth. After many things he puts an end to the Epistle in these words: "With suppliant prayer therefore I beg that, out of that treasure of your inner chambers, whence you have been wont to bring forth things new and old, as most skilled physicians who daily heal the innumerable and various sicknesses of the languishing with the help of God's grace, you would send to my languor also those medicines which you know to be fitting." Many others too had recourse to Faustus for the sake of seeking counsel. Let us now pass on to his particular deeds in the episcopate.

[53] That St. Faustus was at Rome in the year 462, and was present there at the council He was present in the year 462 at a Roman council under St. Hilarus the Pope, which St. Hilarus the Pope held, is understood from Epistle 8 of St. Hilarus, volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], where these things are read: "Concerning which, with a numerous council of the brethren presiding, gathered by the grace of God from divers provinces for the day of our birth in honor of the blessed apostle Peter, with our brethren and fellow bishops Faustus and Auxanius presiding, and with very many things being transacted which look to the vigor and authority of judgment, this was determined by us out of love of peace: that in the sentence which, under the observation of both the legations directed thence, we have brought forth at the inspiration of Christ our Lord, neither the charity of evangelical indulgence nor the rod of Apostolic discipline should be wanting." From the words alleged we have it that Faustus was present at the Roman council, and in all likelihood had been sent to Rome as a legate with Auxanius by the Gallican bishops, since mention is made of both legations.

[54] [to which he seems to have been sent as legate with Auxanius by the bishops of Gaul.] In that council there was treated the case of Hermes the bishop, and other matters pertaining to the Gallican churches, as may be seen more amply in the Epistle itself, and as was said at the tenth of September under St. Hilarus the Pope, §5. Of the same council, and of Faustus and Auxanius as legates, St. Hilarus makes mention in Epistle 10, to the bishops of the various provinces of Gaul, in these words: "Whence, confirming all the things which have been defined by us through our brethren and fellow bishops Faustus and Auxanius," and so forth. Epistle XI of Hilarus was written in the year 464 concerning the case of St. Mamertus, to twenty bishops of the Gauls, among whom Faustus is placed ninth. How long he remained at Rome we do not find. He will in all likelihood have departed not long after the council was concluded. Meanwhile this legation shows that the opinion of the bishops of Gaul concerning the erudition of Faustus, and his prudence in the conduct of affairs, was great.

§ V. Faustus answers three questions, and in that writing maintains that no creature is to be called incorporeal: that writing is refuted by Mamertus Claudianus.

[ ] A little work of Faustus, which, refuted by Mamertus Claudianus, Gennadius, in his Catalogue, chapter 87, among other writings of Faustus speaks thus of one: "I have read his… and another little book against those who say that there is something incorporeal in creatures: in which he confirms by divine testimonies and by the judgments of the fathers that nothing is to be believed incorporeal save God." The same author, in chapter 85, has this concerning Claudianus Mamertus: "Claudianus, presbyter of the church of Vienne, a man skilled in speaking and subtle in disputing, composed three books on the state or on the substance of the soul, in which he pursues the aim of showing that there is something incorporeal besides God." Each little Work is still extant. The first, which is believed to be Faustus's, was printed entire in volume 8 of the Lyons Library of the Fathers, page 548: and it is without doubt that very little Work which Claudianus refuted. His Work, which is of greater bulk and divided into three books, is found in volume 6, from page 1045, and is entitled On the State of the Soul. There is prefixed in the same place Faustus's answer to the third question, as if Mamertus, or Mamercus, Claudianus had attacked that alone. But he wrote against the whole little Work of Faustus, as we shall presently see. In what year the little Work of Faustus was written we do not find. But it was certainly written before the death of Claudianus, who assailed it. In all likelihood, however, it was written while Faustus was bishop, although not even this can be proved with certainty.

[56] The occasion of writing was a bishop, whose name Faustus kept silent, but whose erudition he praised. That man proposed three questions to Faustus, of the first of which

he speaks thus in his answer: "You ask of me, most reverend of priests, how the Arians are to be answered, was written by him upon three questions. The answer to the first is Catholic. who with blasphemous mouth attempt to assert. 'It cannot be,' they say, 'but that the Begotten is younger than the Unbegotten.'" Then he modestly says that he will answer, not so much for the instruction of the matter as for the confession of the faith. These words hint that the answer will be brief. Presently, before the solution of the question, he humbly premises these things: "I answer therefore as disciples are wont to answer masters who question them. And so I speak at the command of your beatitude, that you may discuss my inexperience. I bear witness, that you may teach. For if I keep silence before a most learned man, I can scarcely know what I do not know." Then he subjoins an answer long enough for an Epistle, brief for the weight of the matter. Claudianus Mamertus, book 1, chapter 2, admits that a not un-Catholic judgment is brought forth in that answer; but he carps at its brevity. I do not doubt that Claudianus himself would have disputed at greater length, as he disputed concerning the soul: nor yet do I see that the brevity of Faustus was to be disapproved; for longer things are not always better.

[57] Of the second question the Saint speaks thus: "After these things, in the next place you ask of me Likewise a Catholic answer to the second, how, with respect to the substance of God, it was written in a certain Epistle" (namely of Faustus to Gratus or Graecus): "'He felt nothing with a suffering sense, but He felt with a compassionating affection.'" This question shows that the Epistle of Faustus to Gratus had been seen by that bishop. For there Faustus had used that less cautious expression: "He felt nothing with the sense of one suffering, but He felt with the affection of one compassionating." And presently he had added: "He" (God) "felt nothing by reason of the diversity of substance, but He felt by reason of the unity of person." Faustus had further opened his mind in the same little Work, by denying that the Divinity had suffered, and by inferring from this truth that there are two natures of Christ. Therefore, concerning the things which Christ suffered, he had said: "All which things God received, not in Himself" (that is, in the Divinity), "but in the nature of the man He had taken on." Like things he then says again there, nor does he leave his judgment ambiguous. The bishop nevertheless asked what he meant by those words, "but He felt with the affection of one compassionating." Which words certainly, especially if they be torn away from the rest, can be twisted into a bad sense. The answer of Faustus is summarily this: that God lacks affections, and therefore that the affection of compassion is not attributed to God otherwise than after the human manner of speaking, just as in the sacred Letters there are attributed to Him anger, fury, repentance, nay even eyes, ears, mouth, smell, hands, and feet; so that by likeness with human things divine things may in some fashion be explained.

[58] This exposition could have sufficed for establishing the sound sense of the words. assailed nevertheless by Claudianus and by a modern, Nevertheless Claudianus, in chapter 8, with much contention harasses the answer of Faustus, and laboriously proves that God is not affected — which Faustus himself had said. And so he does indeed refute rightly that manner of speaking, "He felt with the affection of one compassionating," taken in the obvious sense: but he rather fashioned an adversary for himself than had one, attributing to Faustus things which he openly denied. Still more did Ceillier corrupt the sense of Faustus, in volume 15, page 27, when he attributes to Faustus that he asserted that the Divinity in Jesus Christ suffered, not in its own nature, but by a sense of compassion. It is plainly false that Faustus ever said that the Divinity suffered in any manner whatsoever: just as it is false, what he subjoins: "We no longer have that first" (second) "part." The same author, under Faustus, at page 163, draws together into a brief compendium that very part which he had said had fallen away, but again not faithfully enough. "What Faustus says," he says, "to the second question tends to prove that the Divinity is liable to passions, and that it is true in some sense that anger, repentance, and so forth have place in God." I say that these things are plainly false, and I appeal to Faustus himself.

[59] who expounded his words badly, He refutes Faustus no better by assigning the words of St. Augustine, book 1 of the Confessions, chapter 4, where he thus addresses God: "You love, and are not inflamed; You are jealous, and are secure; You repent, and do not grieve; You are angry, and are tranquil," and so forth. For Faustus himself says nothing else, who removes all passion from God, saying: "But God is not affected by these things in a passible way, because they are discerned to be in Him perpetually and naturally." But that anger and other affections are in the Scriptures attributed after the human manner to angels and even to God Himself, Augustine observes in book 9 of the City of God, chapter 5, saying that "nevertheless the names of these passions are, by the custom of human speech, applied even to them" (the angels), "on account of a certain likeness of works, not on account of an infirmity of affections: just as God Himself, according to the Scriptures, is angry, and yet is disturbed by no passion. For this word has taken up the effect of vengeance, not the turbulent effect of that passion." Let us now hear how Faustus too expounds the anger of God: "But for the rest," he says, "the anger of God is justice; the fury of God is the vigor of severity," and so forth. This exposition attributes affections to God no more than Augustine's does. But Claudianus seems to have twisted the words of Faustus, "But God is not affected by these things in a passible way," into an alien sense, as if it had been said that He is indeed affected, but not passibly; whereas nevertheless the following words clearly indicate that both are denied of God by Faustus, that is, passion and any affection whatever: for if all the virtues are perpetually and naturally in God, He is in no way affected by them, as Claudianus himself says, and further explains. But of these things enough.

[60] In the third place he answered that God alone is to be called incorporeal, The third question proposed to Faustus was: "What things in human affairs are to be thought corporeal, and what incorporeal." Faustus answered that nothing seemed to be called incorporeal save God. Henry Canisius, who first published that little Work of Faustus, noted that "this is a base and grave error of Faustus, and of those who favored Faustus" (as Gennadius too seems to have done), "in denying that any creature is incorporeal." Others observe like things. To me too there is no doubt that both our soul and the angels are incorporeal, since the Catholic Church now holds that doctrine. Nevertheless I think that Faustus is accused more gravely on account of this error than he deserves, when regard is had to the time at which he wrote, and to the manner in which he proposed his opinion: for perhaps he differed from the present-day and true judgment rather in name alone than in the thing itself, when he was unwilling that souls and angels be called incorporeal, but believed that God alone was to be called incorporeal.

[61] which in some sense St. Augustine did not disapprove, That that question, as it was disputed at that time, could have had much to do with a name, St. Augustine observes in Epistle 166 (elsewhere 28) to St. Jerome, whom he was consulting concerning the origin of the soul. He there first sets out what has been ascertained by him concerning the soul, and speaks thus: "That the soul also is incorporeal, though it can with difficulty be made convincing to the slower sort, I confess nevertheless that I am convinced. But lest I either superfluously make a controversy about a word, or deservedly suffer one — since, when the thing is agreed upon, there is no need to contend about a name: if every substance or essence, or whatever more aptly names that which in some manner exists in itself, is a body, then the soul is a body. Likewise, if it is thought good to call incorporeal only that nature which is supremely unchangeable and wholly everywhere, then the soul is a body; since it is not itself anything of that sort.

[62] "But if there is no body except what is so set in place or moved through the space of a place, with some length, breadth, and height, that with a greater part of itself it occupies a greater place and with a shorter part a shorter one, and is less in a part than in the whole, then the soul is not a body. although he denies that our soul is a body capable of extension. For through the whole body which it animates it is stretched out not by local diffusion but by a certain vital intention… Wherefore, if the soul is to be called a body, it is certainly not a body such as is earthy, nor such as is watery, or airy, or ethereal. For all such things are greater in greater places and lesser in lesser: and none of them is wholly present in any part of itself; but as there are parts of places, so they are occupied by parts of bodies. Whence it is understood that the soul, whether it be called a body or incorporeal, has a certain nature of its own, created with a substance more excellent than all these elements of the world's mass, which cannot truly be thought of under any phantasy of bodily images, such as we perceive through the senses of the flesh, but can be understood by the mind and felt by life." So St. Augustine. From these things the studious reader will perceive that concerning the substance of the soul — whether it is to be called corporeal or incorporeal — it was so disputed in the times of Augustine, who wrote those things while Faustus was younger, that the resolution of the question depended almost upon the definition of a body. The description of a body which is given in the third place was afterwards received as truer, and according to it St. Augustine asserted without doubt that the soul is incorporeal, as the Church now teaches.

[62] Now some things are to be observed on account of the ignorance of certain more recent writers, Faustus erred in a question of a name, and one not yet defined; who on account of the said error cry out vehemently against Faustus, but extol Claudianus, the adversary of Faustus, with great praises, even though for the one error which he refutes he has fallen into several worse ones. First, the Church had not yet defined whether the soul is corporeal or incorporeal. Secondly, not Faustus alone, but several others too, both before him and after him, maintained that God alone is incorporeal. Hence Gennadius at number 55 speaks no less honorably of the little Work of Faustus than of the opposing one of Claudianus. Thirdly, if the definition of a body be drawn from a capacity for extension of dimension, or in nearly the manner in which St. Augustine above at number 62 describes a body, it is certainly a base error to call the soul corporeal. But Faustus consequently denied that only that is a body which is comprehended by such a definition; rather he held that every substance which is not infinite, unchangeable, and wholly everywhere is to be called a body, and consequently that every created substance is to be named a body. Fourthly, he attributed no merely corporeal quality to the soul: for he did not call the soul visible to bodily eyes, or divisible into parts, or liable to the corruption of bodies, or extended in parts, or mortal. Fifthly, the arguments which he uses show that he attributed to our soul not a true body, but a substance finite in place and time, changeable by various affections, either beautiful by divine grace or defiled by sins, capable also of joys and griefs; not a truly corporeal matter.

[64] Wherefore I do not see that Faustus erred in the qualities themselves of the soul or of the angels, although his error has been exaggerated by his adversary, and I think the same is to be said of certain other Fathers who spoke thus; but he erred in the name, when he believed that a spiritual substance was rather to be called a body. But this error, if the time be regarded, is so worthy of pardon

that St. Augustine, praised before, would not have believed him deserving of reproof. But Mamertus Claudianus, who wished to refute at length in three books the brief writing of Faustus, just as in the second answer of Faustus he sought out for himself an adversary whom he did not have, so in refuting that opinion he fabricated errors which Faustus in no way asserted. Faustus had brought forward a rather lengthy passage from Cassian, Conference 7, chapter 13, intending to prove that according to certain Fathers God alone is incorporeal. But he is not on that account to be reckoned to have adopted all those words as his own. Nevertheless Claudianus not only refutes them, and from them attributes to Faustus the opinion which he wishes — as some moderns too have done — but he even devised many other things to refute. Claudianus was never willing to inquire in what sense Faustus called the soul and the angels bodies, and therefore he dealt blind blows everywhere, and scarcely touched upon what Faustus meant. And yet he knew from St. Augustine that there are different acceptations or definitions of a body: for he adduces that very Epistle of Augustine in which they are enumerated, in book 2, chapter 9. And so he ought not to have assailed Faustus solely from the one acceptation of "body," and that the now common one, but to have set out his sense, which he did not do; or at least to have established well against Faustus the definition of a body.

[65] who fell into several much graver errors, If it now pleases us to scrutinize curiously the Work of Claudianus, which several moderns attend with praises, we shall find, in place of the one error about a name which he refuted, not a few worse ones. For first he attributes to the angels a twofold substance, that is, body and spirit, in book 1, chapters 12 and 13, and again in book 3, chapter 5, in order to explain how Gabriel was with the most holy Mary. This error of Mamertus Claudianus Tillemont acknowledges in volume 6, under St. Mamertus his brother, article 9; but he says that in this he only follows what many Saints and ancient Fathers said. But the same is true of Faustus. Why then is it turned into a crime for Faustus that, following the Fathers, he erred in a question about a name alone, if Claudianus deserves nothing but praise, even though he attributes to the angels true bodies, as distinct from spirits, by a graver error? Secondly, in book 3, chapter 7, Claudianus attributes bodies to demons, and contends by reasoning that they consist both of spirits and of bodies, as Tillemont likewise acknowledges. Thirdly, he did not guard against several errors of Origen. For in book 1, chapter 24, he openly hands down that souls existed before bodies, and were cast down into bodies as a punishment for sins. The same he hinted in chapter 21. But that is the error of the Origenists, already condemned before. Another error of Origen he hints in chapter 22, and more clearly in chapter 13, where, multiplying errors, he says that the bodies of the Saints, which shall deserve to be changed, are to be made equal in glory to angelic bodies — that is, that the Saints in heaven will not have human bodies, or bodies consisting of flesh and bones, but angelic or heavenly ones. And to prove this he misuses these words of Christ: "And they shall be as the angels in heaven." There is a twofold error there: the one already stated, by which he attributes to the angels heavenly bodies distinct from spirits; the other Origen's, by which such bodies are ascribed to the Saints after the resurrection.

[66] and even so he is much praised by the moderns. I pass over other less approvable things in that Work, so as to teach in a few words for what cause I have judged that several errors of Claudianus were to be assigned. The errors enumerated are far worse than that single error of Faustus about a word is. Yet even so I find that Work of Mamertus Claudianus celebrated with many praises by the moderns: and Tillemont in particular, under St. Mamertus, spends almost the whole of article 10 in praise of that Work. Nevertheless, if I were willing to enumerate the paradoxes asserted in that Work, which can never be proved; if the inept pieces of reasoning by which texts of sacred Scripture or of the Fathers are dragged into a wholly alien sense, my discourse would become exceedingly long: but I pass over these and other things, because they do not belong to our purpose. For I wished only to point out some faults of the said Work, so that the studious reader may understand how unfairly most of the moderns have treated St. Faustus, since they have not only studiously observed his light mistakes but have even exaggerated them with many words, while they either pass over the graver ones of his adversaries by dissembling, or excuse them by touching on them lightly. Nor do I observe this of that one Epistle alone, but I have detected the same about plainly all the Works of Faustus.

[67] Moreover, I would not deny that some things are rightly disputed in the books of Mamertus Claudianus, How the Work was praised by Sidonius: in what things Faustus is and that there is in them much profane and philosophical erudition. Claudianus dedicated his Work to Sidonius Apollinaris, who was not yet a bishop, and in the letter prefixed to it at page 1045 he hints in some fashion that he does not know whose was the writing which he had refuted, and asks for the judgment of Sidonius whether he has conquered or yielded — meanwhile ascribing the victory to himself, when lower down he speaks thus of his third book: "It pursues the wounded straggling from the adversary's line." Sidonius, although he was otherwise most ready to praise his friends, for so long gave no answer to these things, so that Claudianus complains much of that silence of his in another Epistle, printed in the same place at page 1041. To this at last Sidonius replied, and bestows much praise on his Work. If, however, anyone examines the words of Sidonius more curiously, he will clearly perceive that the style and the manifold variety of profane learning are praised at length, and nothing besides. The same praise is given to the Work mentioned by Sidonius in another Epistle, page 1042. But he answered nothing to that which Claudianus was asking, whether he had conquered or yielded. I for my part will willingly say that Claudianus conquered to this extent, that he proved the soul to be incorporeal, that is, that he conquered in a controversy about a word.

[68] But as regards the qualities which Faustus attributes to the soul, rightly refuted, and in what things wrongly. namely that it is in a defined and limited place, that it is not in those places of which it merely thinks, and consequently that the substance of the soul is distinct from its acts, and that its substance is not actual thought itself; and moreover that it moves from place to place, that it is capable of joy and of grief, and other things of this kind — of these I find nothing rightly refuted by Claudianus. On the contrary I perceive that he himself fell into paradoxes and open errors while he tries to refute the assertions of Faustus. For the rest, to return to Faustus, he repeated his opinion also in an Epistle presently to be examined: for when asked concerning the soul, whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, he answered: "That which is not enclosed by times, nor confined by the boundaries of places" (which belongs to God alone), "know that this alone is incorporeal," and so forth. Faustus believed that this manner of speaking, by which he called a body whatever was not infinite, most simple, unchangeable and eternal, was useful against the Arians for proving the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In his time, as I have already noted, that manner of speaking was tolerable, because there was no certain definition of a body, nor any decision of the Church concerning these matters; but we must speak otherwise in our own time, in which it is necessary to call all spirits whatsoever incorporeal.

§ VI. The Epistle of Faustus to Benedictus Paulinus: whether certain things in it were disapproved by St. Avitus of Vienne?

[ ] The Saint, consulted by Paulinus, a man of freer life, There is extant also an epistle of St. Faustus to Benedictus Paulinus, printed in the Library of the Fathers after the one just mentioned. It is not reckoned among the writings of the Saint by Gennadius: but he admits that he had not read all of them, and therefore omits some. But the style of that Epistle agrees rightly with the style of Faustus, and that it is the Epistle of a certain Faustus we have from St. Avitus, so that it seems altogether to be attributed to St. Faustus. We do not know at what time this Epistle was written, since it is mentioned only after the death of St. Faustus, when St. Avitus was being consulted about several judgments in that Epistle. And so this only is established, that Faustus was a bishop when he wrote the Epistle. The reason for writing was the consultation of a certain Paulinus, not well enough known, who was of Bordeaux, as we have from St. Avitus. That Paulinus, or Benedictus Paulinus, so far as is gathered from the questions proposed, was of a freer life, and not sufficiently instructed concerning the articles of our faith, or at any rate flattered himself too much. For this cause he had been admonished in grave words by a certain Marinus, who had set before Paulinus the bitterness of the punishments by which sinners will be tormented after death: but the latter does not seem to have given full credence to Marinus, and for that cause to have had recourse to Faustus, that he might seek out his opinion. Our Sirmond, in his Annotata on Epistle 4 of St. Avitus, seems to hint that the Epistle of Paulinus is still extant: but it is known to me in no other way than from the answer of St. Faustus.

[70] concerning penance to be sought at the last moment of life, But he thus begins his Epistle: "The page of your letters, ever to be admired by me, has now shone forth more abundantly with the twin light of eloquence and of faith, while, thinking upon the state of the soul, with anxious fear it sighs after the judgments to come… For it is a certain portion of knowledge to know what you do not know, and prudently to inquire into those things which in your ignorance you do not understand." Of his first question he subjoins thus: "In the first place you thought it should be inquired whether, when the straits of extreme necessity press upon a man, a momentary penance lies to him by the deadly persuasion of the enemy, who thinks that stains contracted over a long age are to be abolished by sudden and even useless groans; at which time there can be confession, but there cannot be satisfaction." Some faults have crept into this passage, as very many others are found in the Library of the Fathers, and they have made the question proposed obscure. The words are in all likelihood to be restored thus, that for inimica there be read inimici, and that the sense be that he inquires whether the man who promises himself a momentary penance at the end of life, led into that presumption by the fraud of the devil, lies to himself when he thinks that stains contracted over a long time are to be abolished by sudden groans. There is added "and even useless," because in all likelihood Marinus had said that those groans are useless which not true contrition but extreme necessity wrings out. Others hold that Paulinus asked whether penance at the last moment of life is always useless. But neither from the words alleged nor from the answer of Faustus am I able to gather that sense.

[71] Whatever the case, Faustus answered that men of that sort, who put off penance until the end of life, are deceived by themselves, "because," he says, "God is not mocked." Another reason is given, because penance must be done by a man, he answers that a penance sought without the due disposition does not profit; and not only received, as he proves from the Prophet, subjoining these things: "Do you note that a medicine of this kind, as it is to be asked for with the mouth, so is to be completed by work? He seems to insult God who at that time was unwilling to come to the physician when he could, and then begins to be willing when he cannot. It is needful, therefore, that as abrupt and as vigorous toward evil as was the intention of the mind in sinning, so great should be, in the

healing of the wounds, the devotion." The Saint answered without doubt according to the understanding of the questioner, who seemed in some fashion to promise himself that it would be enough for his salvation if only he should ask for and receive penance at the moment of death, whether he begged for it with true contrition for his sins or in any other manner whatever. Hence also toward the end of the Epistle, where he had said some things concerning the torments to come, he subjoins: "Which evils the shadow of a momentary penance does not remove, and which faith without works will not repel." When he says "the shadow of a momentary penance," he hints sufficiently that he is not speaking of true contrition, which God can grant even at the last moment, as He granted it to the thief hanging on the cross; but of a penance which is asked for on account of extreme necessity, not out of true contrition of heart, and without the due disposition. That Paulinus was capable of a persuasion of this sort, so as to doubt whether some sort of appearance of penance might not suffice, the second question hints.

[72] This, together with his own answer, St. Faustus thus sets out: "In the second place you asked and further that faith alone does not suffice for adults. whether the knowledge of the one Trinity alone profits unto salvation. In divine matters not only the manner of believing is required, but of pleasing. Faith therefore bare of merits is empty and void." This answer he proves at length from the Epistle of St. James, and from various passages of St. Paul and of the Gospels. The answer is most certain and beyond doubt: but it in no way treats of little ones who have obtained baptism, but of those who have the use of reason. His mind concerning little ones who are to be saved by faith alone through baptism St. Faustus altogether declared in book 1 On Grace and Free Will, chapter 7, in these words: "He awaits faith from little ones, and requires works also along with faith from those who have been confirmed" (God), "yet in such a way that He increases the affection of belief in those who advance, and stands by as a daily helper to those who labor." If anyone will read through the whole answer of Faustus, he will not doubt that he is arraigning sinners, of whom he says that faith alone without penance will not profit for obtaining salvation. In this answer certainly there was nothing which could offend a prudent theologian, as Sirmond has already observed in his Annotata.

[73] Nevertheless certain more recent writers, and Tillemont by name, under Faustus, article 4, From these Gondobad the king proposed two questions to St. Avitus, write that each of St. Faustus's answers just related was reproved by St. Avitus of Vienne. They allege Epistle 4 of St. Avitus to King Gundobad, who from the Epistle of Faustus had proposed two questions in his own way, in all likelihood for this cause, that each case touched him in some fashion. For Gundobad, king of the Burgundians, an Arian, came to know the truth of the Catholic faith, convinced by the arguments of St. Avitus, as the writer of Tours relates in book 2 of his History, chapter 34, and wished to be confirmed secretly by him with the sacred chrism; but when St. Avitus urged that he should profess the faith publicly, and said to the king that the faith was not to be blushed at, "he, confounded by that argument, persisted in this madness until the end of his life," nor was he willing to confess publicly the equality of the Trinity. And so it is probable that that king sometimes thought about professing the faith at the moment of death. The other question equally regarded him: for if faith alone were believed to suffice for salvation, Gundobad could flatter himself that not even an outward profession of faith would be necessary. For I do not see why a public profession of faith cannot be numbered among good works, especially if some king is deterred from it by fear of his people, as was happening with Gundobad. He therefore, whether for the reasons stated or for some other cause, sought the judgment of St. Avitus concerning each answer.

[74] to the first he replied, not having seen the Epistle of Faustus, Nevertheless he does not seem to have sent the whole Epistle to St. Avitus, but only to have set out, either in his own words or in words selected from the Epistle, what had been asked by a certain Paulinus of Bordeaux and answered by Faustus the bishop. For St. Avitus was in doubt whether that Faustus might perhaps be Faustus the Manichean, who had been consulted by St. Paulinus; or rather Faustus of Riez, or some other Faustus. But if St. Avitus had seen the Epistle itself, the thought could not have occurred to him of St. Paulinus consulting, nor of Faustus the Manichean answering; and perhaps he would have detected Faustus of Riez well enough from the style itself. Wherefore it must altogether be said that the questions were only briefly proposed by means of certain words of the answer torn away from the rest of the context — and this becomes manifest from the Epistle itself of St. Avitus — or perhaps only by means of the words of Gundobad himself. For you would scarcely find three words of Faustus in the whole Epistle of Avitus. That Gundobad was rightly moved by that answer — nay, holily, carefully, royally — St. Avitus says, and subjoins: "That penance, which you have properly named momentary, that is, in sickness as it were under the moment of death, profits nothing or profits no one — that is a definition contrary to truth and exceedingly crude." This is most true, and rightly proved by St. Avitus.

[75] so that he is not to be reckoned to have answered contrary to Faustus, But to me it seems no less true that Faustus neither meant that nor said it. Faustus shows how foolishly those act who put off penance until the last moment of life, and by a diabolical persuasion go on sinning, whether because they presume that true penance and contrition of heart will then be given them by God, or because they think that some sort of appearance of penance suffices. Faustus was not being consulted by a presbyter whether penance should be given, and absolution granted, to one laboring in his last extremity. He was not answering a sick man asking whether time remained for him to turn to God and to do penance. In these cases certainly the answer would have had to be different, and without doubt Faustus would have answered differently, preaching the divine mercy, of which one must not despair as long as a man lives. For he clearly says in book 1 On Grace and Free Will, chapter 12: "But for the rest, right up to the end, both the worst can pass over to justice, and the perfect can fear peril."

[76] since he was answering in other circumstances. But he was answering a man bound by grave sins, to whom the necessity of penance had already been preached. He was answering a man in health, who was fleeing the labor of penance and of a pious life, who scarcely believed the last punishments of impenitent sinners, who doubted whether faith alone might not suffice for salvation even for great sinners, who seemed to believe that by a certain shadow of penance sins would presently be remitted. To this man, therefore, there had to be preached the gravity of the peril to which he was exposing himself, if he should presume to put off penance until the end of life. Not otherwise, I think, would St. Avitus himself have answered, if he had been questioned by a like man. But all the circumstances of the question and of the answer were not set out to him.

[77] The answer of St. Avitus to the second question The same must be thought concerning the second question, of which St. Avitus speaks thus: "In the second question also, that we should deny that faith alone can profit a man — this I by no means approve: nor do I profess myself of the party of those who, as the Lord says, lay a heavy weight upon the shoulders of the disciples, which nevertheless they themselves refuse to move with one finger. On which account a stranger might have presumed so rigid a judgment about faith, or one of ours ought to have tempered it." These things some moderns bring forward as though said against Faustus — men who by their very manner of speaking make it manifest that they do not understand what they write. St. Avitus does not disapprove the answer of Faustus, which he had not seen, and which is accurate, so that it cannot be disapproved by a prudent theologian; but he disapproves that which Gundobad in all likelihood had said, that faith alone cannot profit a man. Certainly Faustus had not said this, but had denied that faith alone suffices for salvation to a man advanced to the use of reason, as the Catholic Church teaches. He had denied that adulterers, murderers, the sacrilegious, and other grave sinners are to be saved, even if they preserve the faith. Where he had alleged various passages from the sacred Letters to prove this truth, before he goes on to other matters he speaks thus: "Let us see whether faith alone defends one who is prodigal of his own life" (that is, negligent of a good life); "and whether the baptized man (as you say) can now no longer perish." Who from this would not see that a manifest heresy is being assailed and refuted by Faustus? It is one thing to say that faith alone does not profit: for it will profit at least to this extent, that a man is not to be punished by God for the sin of unbelief. It is another to say that faith alone does not suffice for an adult unto salvation, which Faustus teaches along with the Catholic Church.

[78] The proof of St. Avitus, which those moderns snatch at, stands in need of a kindly interpretation is partly not contrary to Faustus, and partly is to be kindly interpreted, more than the answer of Faustus does. "For if," he says, "one baptized, or even brought over from any heresy — a little one, or perhaps one advanced in a longer age — be snatched away by a swift end after the washing, not even the boaster of works would deny that the man was saved by faith alone." These very words, I say, stand in need of a kindly interpretation, so that St. Avitus may be reckoned to be speaking only of outward or bodily works: for if they be taken strictly, they are not true. What is said of a little one is true, and on this side Faustus agrees, praised at number 72. But what is said of an adult or an old man is more subtle than strictly true. For either that old man rightly disposed himself for baptism by the required interior acts, or he did nothing of these. If he was unwilling to bring the due disposition, and never willed to love God and keep His precepts, he certainly will not be saved.

[79] But if by the grace of God he disposed himself well, grieved for his sins, certainly the answer of Faustus is Catholic and true. purposed to keep the precepts of God, and elicited the other interior acts which are required in the baptism of an adult — nay, and by an outward act offered himself to receive baptism — he will not be saved without works and by faith alone, as is most clear to one who considers the matter accurately. And so, since Faustus had been questioned about adults, and was answering about adults alone, he is assailed by as inept a piece of reasoning as he is undeservedly carped at. St. Avitus can be kindly excused, because he did not know against whom he was arguing, and perhaps believed that works without faith were being commended by an unknown adversary. But what Tillemont and others mean when they say that it is true that a man is not saved by faith alone unless works are impossible, I do not sufficiently grasp; still less by what theological reasoning someone has added, "as happens to him who is converted at the moment of death." He handles theological matters with a coarse wit indeed who thinks that a sinner is to be saved at once, provided that at the end he have faith or elicit an act of faith, even though he think neither of hope nor of charity nor of penance, or have exercised those virtues throughout his whole life; even though he neither detest his sins, nor purpose to keep the precepts of God and to love God above all things. But if he does indeed believe these things necessary, yet does not count them among good works, he himself does not know what he is saying.

[80] The answers of Faustus to the other questions, in which The third question, proposed to St. Faustus by Paulinus, is explained in these words: "This also disquiets your mind with a provident care for the future, whether souls stripped of the body do not strip off the vigor and the affection of feeling and of understanding." Faustus rightly answers that souls then also feel and understand. The fourth question was, what of evil is either given to or taken away from the wicked after their end. To this he answers only briefly: that earthly desires will perish, that the fear of judgment will remain. The fifth was about the soul, whether it is corporeal. To which he answers, in a manner of speaking certainly to be disapproved today, that God alone is incorporeal, because He alone is not enclosed by times nor confined by the boundaries of places. We know, however, other incorporeal things too; but concerning these the things disputed in §5 may be seen. He also inquires in that answer why by the sin of Adam the body alone was condemned to death, and the soul remained immortal. But he proposes this in such words that Tillemont believed he found in them a Semipelagian error. "It must be inquired among these things," he says, "what that is, that whereas each man" (that is, soul and body) "transgressed while still in the region of paradise, at the persuasion of the devil, the flesh alone received the penalty of the transgression by the condition of death, and the guilt remained common while the punishment fell on one." But these words do not deny that the soul was injured by the sin of Adam, as Tillemont perhaps imagined to himself. Faustus only inquires why the body is punished with death on account of Original sin, while the soul remains immortal, as is clear from the answer: "It must be known therefore that death did not reach the soul for this reason, that in it the Lord placed His image and likeness," and so forth.

[81] again something is wrongly carped at: But that the harms which the soul too suffered by Adam's sin are not denied is confirmed from the following question, which is the sixth. "You ask also why the soul has something in common with its own flesh on account of a bodily fault, such as original sin. On account of the unity of the bodily lodging an equal lot embraces both, provided that each be bound together in the fellowship of sins." Perhaps something here is faulty. But the answer is certain: that the soul sinned together with the body, and is punished together with the body. Of the injury to free will he does not speak, because other things were to be treated. But in the books On Grace and Free Will he frequently acknowledges that our free will was injured, weakened, and enfeebled by the sin of the first man. The contrary error of Pelagius, which Tillemont strives without foundation to attribute to him, he at once detests thus in book 1, chapter 1: "Being about to treat, with the Holy Spirit enlightening us, of the grace of God and the frailty of free will… we have believed that in the first place the blasphemies of Pelagius — long since, that is, betrayed by the faith of the Catholic Church, confounded by learning, trampled by authority — were to be touched upon in a brief and necessary discourse." And presently he commemorates one of these blasphemies in these words: "So he fell on the other side, while he proclaims the liberty of the will entire and uninjured."

[82] so great is the moderns' lust for censuring St. Faustus. There remain two other questions, namely why an immortal soul is tormented for mortal vices; and whether soul and spirit are the same. To these the Saint so answered as to strive above all to strike in a salutary fear by commemorating and proving the eternal punishments, concluding thus: "Here let us put an end to endless contentions, and by now wholesomely thinking upon the intolerable burnings, let us procure for ourselves out of those very fires eternal refreshments." For the rest, from the things said concerning this Epistle it is again clear how unmercifully the moderns leap upon St. Faustus, even though they not only have no legitimate cause, but not even a plausible one. For what can be done more piously and prudently than to persuade a man of a freer life not to put off penance to the end of life, as Faustus here did? What can be said more Catholically than that faith alone does not suffice for a sinner unto salvation, as he warned in the same Epistle?

§ VII. The deeds of St. Faustus with Lucidus the presbyter, who retracts the Predestinarian errors: the councils of Arles and of Lyons, in which those errors were condemned.

[ ] When Lucidus the presbyter was following the errors of the Predestinarians, About the year 473 are to be fixed the deeds of St. Faustus against Lucidus the presbyter, who had fallen into various errors against the sound doctrine concerning the Predestination of God. Hence the followers of the opinion which he was following were called Predestinarians. For our purpose it is by no means necessary to inquire whether the Predestinarians arose while St. Augustine was living or later, nor whether there were many followers of that heresy, or only a few, and those obscure. For it suffices for our intention that there were such men in the time of St. Faustus, and that among them was Lucidus the presbyter, whom he brought back to a sound mind. Tillemont, under Faustus, article 6, says that it can with difficulty be said whether Lucidus was really in error, or was only accused of error. Noris too, in book 2 of the Pelagian History, chapter 15, hints at much doubt concerning the Predestinarians, and adduces many things to hint that the patrons of the true judgment of St. Augustine concerning Predestination could have been called Predestinarians by the Semipelagians out of calumny. Nevertheless he does not dare, against the very confession of Lucidus, against the two councils gathered for these causes, and against the most open testimonies of Faustus concerning those errors, to adhere to the opinion of certain Jansenists; but he admits that there really were Predestinarians, saying: "This is plain from the Epistle of Lucidus, who with his own mouth admits that he adhered to those errors. Assuredly in the following century a certain Monimus, an African, held the capital dogma which they say belonged to the Predestinarians, namely that men had been predestined by God unto sins."

[84] Of this error of Monimus he adduces St. Fulgentius as witness; whom he acknowledges to have existed in the sixth century, and by the testimony of the same Fulgentius he acknowledges that there were also some followers of another error of the Predestinarians, by which they are said to have left nothing to free will. But if such heretics existed in the sixth century in Africa, and this is sufficiently established for Noris by the testimony of St. Fulgentius, I do not see why he labors so greatly to extenuate both their number and their doctrine in the fifth century in Gaul. Noris seems to have feared that he would attribute too serious business to the holy bishops of the two councils, unless he made the Predestinarians so slight that they might seem rather to be despised than refuted. He does not dare to deny that there were such men: yet he twists himself about on every side so that he seems to admit the Predestinarians unwillingly. After many things brought forward, by which he all but attributes those errors to a calumny of the Semipelagians, he thus declares his judgment: "But, as I have said, it could have happened that, when the Semipelagian teachers, arguing against St. Augustine, contended that those dogmas were inferred from his doctrine as absurdities, certain men of a duller wit swallowed those very things down, whereas nevertheless learned men refuted those objections from the answers of Prosper.

[85] "Wherefore I do not doubt that the Predestinarians, if there were any, were of the lowest common sort, although by the example of others and such as you would call by no means equal to founding a sect — men who, while they held the best view concerning predestination with Augustine, were compelled by the arguments of their adversaries to admit those absurdities, so that they are to be believed to have held them not willingly but as it were driven to them. Whence the Semipelagians, waxing proud, published these same things about them, so that the judgment concerning gratuitous predestination might be utterly driven out of the schools. Let this indeed be our opinion concerning the Predestinarian heresy." But I scarcely understand what Noris means. For if they held the best view, as he would have it, concerning predestination with Augustine, how did they admit those absurdities? For he does not hold a good view concerning predestination who deduces and admits absurd consequences from it. No more do I understand why he speaks doubtfully of the Predestinarians, "if there were any," since he had already said before that with his own mouth Lucidus was a Predestinarian, and then Monimus and others in Africa.

[86] he wonderfully extenuates their sect, Again the words are those of a man struggling against himself, when he says that they were "of the lowest common sort, and such as you would call by no means equal to founding a sect." For Lucidus was a presbyter, as Arius too was, and several other heresiarchs. How too will it be proved by him — what is said gratuitously by Noris — either that the Predestinarians brought forth their depraved dogmas unwillingly; or that the Semipelagians, whose number he gratuitously increased, published those dogmas about them? These things no one will assert who takes care not to say more than he can prove by suitable arguments. Certainly the followers of Calvin, who taught like things with the Predestinarians, were not so few that from them a plausible conjecture is made about the fewness of the Predestinarians. Wherefore the passages alleged show that Noris labored wonderfully to extenuate the sect of the Predestinarians; just as it is ascertained on other grounds that several men were wrongly traduced by him as Semipelagians.

[87] Cardinal Noris, against the dreams of Mauguin, He was unwilling, however, to consent to the dreams of Gilbert Mauguin, who would have it that all those documents from which the sect of the Predestinarians is known are utterly fictitious — nay, he contends that they were fabricated by Faustus himself. "The praised Gilbert Mauguin," says Noris, "asserts that both synods, that of Arles and that of Lyons, are fictitious, and likewise the Epistle of Lucidus, contending that all these were composed by the crafty art of Faustus of Riez, in order that he might put about that the doctrine of St. Augustine had been condemned by the Gallican synods under the name of the Predestinarian heresy. But to these things I shall never assent: for who would persuade himself of such great deceits on the part of Faustus, who would not have been afraid to present himself before all the bishops of the Gauls as the architect of such great lies? With what mind would he have dared to impose upon Leontius, a most learned metropolitan, as though he were writing in full about the most remote affairs of Asia, and not about those things which had been done in two most noble cities the day before yesterday? Mauguin objects that nowhere except in the books of Faustus is mention made of those synods. But this kind of argument from denial is slippery. We know that Leontius of Arles, by the decree of Hilarus (the Pope) praised above, gathered Gallican synods every year, of which nevertheless no memory anywhere survives." Those dreams of Mauguin, as resting on no argument, Tillemont too refutes in article 7. And so it is not necessary to refute them further: for they neither square with a sound judgment, and they seem to have been devised out of a mere lust for calumniating Faustus. and the atrocious calumnies of the apologists of Jansenius;

[88] Noris goes on thus further: "The apologists of Jansenius concede that both synods were held: they add nevertheless that they were made up of bishops, partly Semipelagians, partly deceived by the Semipelagian Faustus. But without witnesses I would not dare to brand most learned and most wise Fathers with this injury." I could wish that Noris had shown himself as fair to other Saints also, and had not reckoned them into the number of the Semipelagians without certain arguments. But as regards the apologists of Jansenius, they certainly deserve little credit, since indeed they arraign Catholic doctrine as Semipelagian, and without doubt call the bishops of the council of Arles and of Lyons Semipelagians for no other reason than that they cannot deny that those dogmas were approved by those Fathers which were proposed to Lucidus by Faustus in an Epistle. On account of these men Mauguin called both councils, together with the Epistle of Lucidus, fictitious. Which, since it is too absurd, and foreign to every appearance of truth,

they saw, they preferred to calumniate the Fathers of both councils as Semipelagians. But this calumny too is destitute of every ancient testimony, and lacks reason no less than the other.

[89] Let us now see what St. Faustus did to tear Lucidus away from his errors. when St. Faustus warned him to come to his senses, He approached the man with familiar conversations, but in vain. But when the bishops were meditating graver measures against Lucidus, he gravely warned him by an Epistle, and set before him the articles of faith which he was bound to profess, so that he might hold with the Catholic Church. The Epistle, in Labbe, volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], is inscribed: "To the lord most bound to me, and to be venerated and welcomed by me with a special affection, brother Lucidus the presbyter, Faustus." After this honorable inscription he writes thus: "It is a great charity to wish rather to cure by God's help and grace the error of a brother who is too little cautious, than, as the highest prelates are meditating, to suspend him from the goodness. What can I say about this matter by letters to your unanimity, as you wish, when, being present, I have never been able by much gentle and humble conversation to draw you to the way of truth? Speaking therefore of the grace of God and the obedience of man, we ought altogether to determine this: that, neither bending to the left nor pressing unseasonably to the right, we should rather walk the royal road. But I was astonished that your reverence had said that no one ever under a religious profession either wrote or preached against the Catholic faith: whereas very many have believed that their manifold and profane errors were to be inserted even into the monuments of their writings — men who nevertheless gloried in the Christian name.

[90] "Briefly therefore I shall say, so far as I can speak with one absent, and reviewed the errors that must necessarily be abjured, what you ought to hold with the Catholic Church: that is, that you should always join the working of the baptized servant to the grace of the Lord, and that you should detest, along with the dogma of Pelagius, him who asserts predestination with man's labor excluded.

I. "Anathema therefore to him who, among the other impieties of Pelagius, shall have contended with a presumption to be condemned that man is born without sin and can be saved by labor alone; and to him who shall have believed that he can be set free without the grace of God." This article condemns the errors of Pelagius.

II. "Likewise anathema to him who shall have asserted that a man solemnly baptized with a faithful confession, and asserting the Catholic faith, and afterwards fallen away through the various delights of this world, has perished in Adam and in original sin.

III. "Likewise anathema to him who shall have said that a man is pressed down into death by the foreknowledge of God.

IV. "Likewise anathema to him who shall have said that he who perished did not receive the power to be saved; that is, concerning one baptized, or concerning a pagan of that age who could have believed and would not.

V. "Likewise anathema to him who shall have said that a vessel of dishonor cannot rise up so as to be a vessel unto honor.

VI. "Likewise anathema to him who shall have said that Christ did not die for all, nor wills all men to be saved." The five later articles are set down against the Predestinarians, either because they asserted the errors condemned in them, or because they were at least suspected of those errors.

[91] briefly discoursing upon the articles proposed, Then Faustus goes on thus: "But when you shall have come to us in the name of Christ, or when you shall have been summoned by the priests, then opportunely, if the Lord shall command, we shall bring forth testimonies in their proper places, by which both the things which are Catholic may be made manifest, and the things which are contrary to Catholics may be destroyed. But we, through the enlightenment of Christ, truly and confidently assert both that he who perished through fault could have been saved through grace, if he had not denied to grace itself the obedience of a servant's labor; and that he who through grace has come by an obedient service to the goals of a good consummation could fall through sloth and could perish through fault. We therefore, walking in the middle with Christ as our leader, assert after grace — without which we are nothing — the labor of a dutiful service: but we in every way exclude arrogance and presumption of labor, so that, while we sweat with all our strength lest grace be made void in us, we may declare that whatever we have received from the hand of the Lord is a gift and not a price; knowing that the fruit of that labor is a matter of duty, not of merit, saying with the Evangelist: 'We are unprofitable servants; what we ought to do, we have done.'

[92] and threatening to lay the matter before a council, unless he obey. "Let your unanimity answer by a returning discourse whether it accepts or rejects these things, which have been mentioned briefly according to the brevity of an Epistle. For the rest, he who does not follow this measure of truth, with grace going before and effort rising up, will deserve to be kept from the sacred thresholds. I, however, holding your goodness, undivided from me, in the way with the whole embrace of a sincere kindness, desire that you remain in the bosom of mother Church, this error being repudiated. If it be quickly rejected, it will seem to have been of ignorance; but it will be reckoned a blasphemy, if it be obstinately defended. For we hurl back a grave odium upon the Author, if we say that He was unwilling to give the possibility of laying hold of salvation to him who perished; to him, at least, who is already able to grasp the liberty of the will;[*] since we can by no means deny that He will condemn the transgressor of the commandment in the examination of His judgment. For he who is not liable in respect of what he has received, I know not how he can be guilty in respect of what he has lost. And thus, sinning against God, whose grace we have in the first place too incautiously asserted, we shall seem in the last place to assail His justice. But a copy of this Epistle I keep with me, to be brought forth in the assembly of the holy prelates, if it shall be so necessary. But if you shall be unwilling to send it back subscribed, as I have said, you will openly prove by that very silence that you still persist in your error: and therefore you will now lay upon me the necessity of exposing your person to public assemblies. And therefore write back according to these things which have been directed by me, whether, all circumlocutions removed, you either acknowledge or reject them." Thus far the Epistle.

[93] The Epistle, afterwards subscribed by many bishops, This was in all likelihood first sent to Lucidus by Faustus alone, and subscribed by him alone, since indeed he warns Lucidus in his own name only, yet in such a way as to hint that the matter would be laid before a council of bishops unless he came to his senses. Nevertheless the Epistle of Faustus was published with the subscriptions of eleven bishops and of Lucidus the presbyter himself, in this manner:

Auxanius, bishop in the name of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Faustus, I have read again and subscribed the copy of my Epistle.

Paulus, bishop in the name of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Eutropius, bishop in the name of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Pragmatius, bishop under the sign of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Patiens, bishop in Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Euphronius, I have read again, and have admired the holy fullness.

Megethius, bishop, I have read again and subscribed.

Claudius, bishop in the name of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Leucadius, bishop in the name of Christ, I have read again and subscribed.

Julianus, bishop in the name of Christ, I have subscribed.

Lucidus, presbyter, I have read again and subscribed.

These subscriptions are found in the printed editions: but Henry Canisius, in volume 5 of the Ancient Readings, page 429, testifies that they are not found in his manuscript.

[94] Noris, book 2, chapter 15, probably thinks that it is found also without the subscriptions of the others whether in the council of Arles, in which the errors of Lucidus were condemned, because thus it was sent to Lucidus at the beginning: but that the subscriptions of the others were added after it had been received and subscribed by Lucidus. He thinks, however, that the subscriptions were not added in the council of Arles, because Leontius of Arles, who presided over it, is not found subscribed. The matter seems to me doubtful. Faustus could have asked the praised bishops before the council to subscribe, on account of the silence of Lucidus, by which the latter might be more urged, through the consent of a greater number, to retract his errors. They could all also have subscribed in the council of Arles, even though the subscription of all has not come down to us: for part of the subscriptions could have fallen out through the negligence of the copyists, as not rarely happens elsewhere. Whichever of these be truer, a council of bishops was gathered, and in it the errors of Lucidus were condemned, as we understand from the Epistle of Lucidus retracting them, and from the Preface of Faustus to the books On Grace and Free Will.

[95] From this too we have it that the first council was at Arles; or before, or afterwards in that of Lyons, when Lucidus retracted his errors. and that then another was held at Lyons also concerning these matters, in which perhaps Lucidus retracted his errors: for his Epistle seems to have been written after the first council concerning these things, since in it he says: "According to the recent statutes of the council which are to be proclaimed." Hence it becomes uncertain whether all thirty bishops, to whom Lucidus wrote his Epistle, were present in the council of Arles. But certainly all condemned his errors in one or the other or in both councils; to all he directed the Epistle by which he abjured them, and it is probable that all of them likewise subscribed the Epistle of Faustus, even though the names of some have fallen out. This subscription could have been made in that council also. Certainly there it was enjoined upon St. Faustus that he should add some things to the books already then written against the Predestinarians, as we shall see below.

[96] Who the bishops were to whom Lucidus directed his retractation, Lucidus, by an Epistle directed to thirty bishops, we have from the inscription: "To the most blessed lords and most reverend fathers in Christ, the bishops Leontius, Euphronius, Fonteius, Viventius, Mamertus, Patiens, Verianus, Auxanius, Faustus, Paulus, Megethius, Graecus, Eutropius, Leontius, Claudius, Marcellus, Crocus, Basilius, Claudius, Ursicinus, Praetextatus, Pragmatius, Theoplastus, Leocadius, Viventius, Julianus, Amicalis, Joannes, Opilio, and Licinius, Lucidus the presbyter." Several of these are known from the Epistles of Sidonius and from elsewhere, and not a few are also conspicuous for sanctity, and mentioned in our Work. But it is not necessary for our purpose to assign the sees of each. Lucidus begins his Epistle in this manner: "Your rebuke is the public safety, and your sentence is medicine. Whence I too count it the highest remedy that by accusing my past errors I should excuse them, and cleanse myself by a saving confession. Accordingly, according to the recent statutes of the council which are to be proclaimed, I condemn with you," and so forth. The Fathers therefore condemned in the council the errors which Lucidus retracts. But these are more than those which Faustus had warned in his Epistle were to be condemned, and he says that in fact still others were afterwards detected, in the Preface to the books On Free Will, in these words: "In which little Work indeed, new errors having been detected after the subscription of the council of Arles, the synod of Lyons required that some things be added." From these things it becomes probable to me that the Epistle of retractation which we have was offered rather to the council of Lyons than to that of Arles, since new errors are said to have been detected after the latter, and in fact Lucidus retracts not only the errors of which he had been warned by Faustus, but others too.

[97] abjures his errors, here reviewed, But whatever the case may be as to the time, he retracted the following errors in this manner: "I condemn with you that opinion which says that the labor of human obedience is not to be joined to divine grace. Which says that after the fall of the first man the free choice of the will

was wholly extinguished. Which says that Christ our Savior did not undergo death for the salvation of all. Which says that the foreknowledge of God violently compels a man to death, or that those who perish, perish by the will of God. Which says that after baptism has been lawfully received whoever transgresses dies in Adam. Which says that some are appointed to death, others predestined to life." These things agree with the Epistle of Faustus. Then follow those of which he had made no mention in express words: "Which says that from Adam to Christ none of the Gentiles were saved by the first grace of God, that is, by the law of nature, unto the coming of Christ, for the reason that they lost free will in the first parent." These things are not to be so understood as if some were said to have come to salvation by the law of nature without interior grace: for those words "unto the coming of Christ" hint sufficiently that neither faith nor interior grace, obtained by the merits of the Christ who was to come, is excluded; but that those are condemned who, on account of Adam's sin, deprived all who lived under the law of nature of free will, of grace, and of salvation. There follows: "Which says that the patriarchs and prophets, or any of the highest of the Saints, dwelt within paradise even before the times of the Redemption.

[98] and by name he acknowledges that Christ died for all, "All these things, as impious and filled with sacrileges, I condemn. But I so assert the grace of God that I always join man's striving and effort to grace, and declare that the liberty of the human will is not extinguished but weakened and enfeebled: and that he who is saved is in peril, and that he who perished could have been saved. That Christ also, our God and Savior, so far as pertains to the riches of His goodness, offered the price of His death for all: and that, since He wills that none perish, He is the Savior of all, especially of the faithful, rich toward all who call upon Him. And because in matters so great satisfaction must be made to conscience, I remember that I said before that Christ had come only for those whom He foreknew would believe, following the Lord's sentences, in which He says thus: 'The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a redemption for many.' And that: 'This is the cup of my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.' Or that of the Apostle: 'As it is appointed unto men to die, so also Christ was once offered to exhaust the sins of many.' But now, by the authority of the sacred testimonies, which are found abundantly throughout the spaces of the divine Scriptures, the reason having been laid open from the doctrine of the elders, I willingly confess that Christ came also for the lost, because they perished against His will. For it is not right that the riches of His immense goodness and the divine benefits be shut up around those only who seem to have been saved. For if we say that Christ brought remedies only to those who have been redeemed, we shall seem to absolve the unredeemed, whom it is established are to be punished for a redemption despised.

[99] "I assert also that, by the reason and order of the ages, some were saved by the law of grace, and that by His death some in the old Law also were saved: others by the law of Moses, others by the law of nature, which God wrote in the hearts of all, in hope of the coming of Christ: yet that from the beginning of the world they were not absolved from the original bond except by the intercession of the sacred blood. I profess also eternal fires, and infernal flames prepared for capital deeds: because the divine sentence deservedly follows human faults that persevere — which sentence they justly incur who shall not have believed these things with the whole heart. Pray for me, holy and apostolic lords and fathers. I, Lucidus the presbyter, have subscribed this Epistle with my own hand: and the things which are established in it I assert; and the things which are condemned, I condemn." The Most Eminent Baronius, at the year 490, number 17, treats of the heresy of the Predestinarians, and thinks that it arose from the doctrine of St. Augustine badly understood. From wherever it took its origin, whether from a perverse interpretation of sacred Scripture or from the doctrine of St. Augustine badly understood, they are worthy of laughter rather than of further refutation who deny that that heresy existed.

[100] Tillemont himself, in article 7 under Faustus, clearly shows indeed hence the Predestinarian heresy can by no reasoning be denied. with what a reluctant mind he is compelled to admit the Predestinarian heresy condemned in two councils, yet he says: "Nonetheless, since his" (Lucidus's) "doctrine was rejected in the councils" (nay, and condemned), "and since he himself abandoned it" (nay, and condemned it), "it is the shortest course likewise to abandon him" (Lucidus), "and to confess that he was in the errors of those whom they call Predestinarians" (in French, des prétendus Prédestinatiens). I do not sufficiently see for what cause he confesses that the errors of Lucidus are to be acknowledged, and yet is unwilling candidly to name the followers of those errors Predestinarians. For it is not necessary to wrangle about a name, provided that their errors are established.

[101] The praised Baronius, even though he thought less rightly of Faustus [Baronius praises the Epistles of Faustus and of Lucidus as approved by the councils and Catholic,] when he first wrote his Annals, nevertheless found nothing in his Epistle to Lucidus which he might reprove; but he speaks of it thus: "But by these errors was a certain Lucidus, a presbyter of great name, held fast, to whom Faustus wrote that Epistle which we have said was approved as truly Catholic by the bishops of the council of Arles and fortified with their subscription." And when he had recited the Epistles both of Faustus and of Lucidus, he subjoins: "Thus far the profession of Lucidus according to those things which had been defined by the bishops named in the synod," and so forth. And so Baronius found nothing in the Epistle of Lucidus either which might offend. Nevertheless Henry Canisius, in volume 5 of the Ancient Readings, page 431, calls the Epistle of Faustus erroneous. But Henry Canisius, who was more learned in canon law than in theological matters, seems to have said this rather from a certain prejudice against Faustus than from a mature examination, so that his judgment cannot cause us much trouble. Certainly the bishops who subscribed the Epistle, and afterwards committed to Faustus the care of explaining more amply what he had briefly asserted in the Epistle, did not judge that any error was contained in it. For they would not have strengthened the Epistle with their subscription if they had believed it infected with errors: and still less would they have committed to St. Faustus the further refutation of the Predestinarian heresy, and the explanation and proof of the articles contained in the Epistle, if they had held those very articles even lightly suspect of error.

[102] Deschamps refuted the Jansenists who declaim against both, The Jansenists, however, since they perceive that the epistles of Faustus and of Lucidus are opposed to their errors, have wished to traduce both as Semipelagian, following in these matters Calvinist writers, as Étienne Deschamps shows in his Work On the Jansenian Heresy, book 1, Disputation 7, chapter 7, and again in book 2, Disputation 7, chapter 1. In the first place he chiefly proves that the Jansenists drew their views from the Calvinist Ussher. In the second, however, he not only defends both Epistles, but also the Fathers of the council of Arles and of Lyons, whom some of the Jansenists have likewise calumniated as Semipelagians, or at least have asserted to have been deceived by the Semipelagian Faustus. Their objections Deschamps so weighs and refutes that Noël Alexandre, even though he is otherwise very hostile to Faustus, closely followed him in his Ecclesiastical History of the fifth century, Dissertation 5, Proposition 4, which he expressed thus: "Lucidus the presbyter adhered to those errors which Faustus himself attributes to him, and calls errors of Predestination. Whence the heresy of the Predestinarians was not imaginary, although it did not have very many followers."

[103] and Noël Alexandre, with whom Catholics everywhere agree. He proves these assertions from both the Epistle of Faustus and that of Lucidus, and from the twin council. He solves the objections, and what certain men have impudently asserted concerning the Fathers of both councils he takes up in these words: "But as to what they blurt out to the injury of the synod of Arles and of Lyons, that these were conventicles of Semipelagians, we accuse them of calumny, which is branded without foundation upon most celebrated bishops, some of whom were distinguished for sanctity as well." Wherefore I should prefer to refer readers to the praised writers than to do again what has been done, and to refute at greater length the calumnies brought forth against both Epistles and both councils. For Catholics everywhere acknowledge that both Epistles are duly Catholic: nor ought the judgment of the Jansenists to have any authority in these matters among Catholics, since it is established that their opinions concerning the Semipelagian errors are depraved, and have been solemnly condemned by the Church.

*. That is, one in possession of reason.

§ VIII. Faustus, at the request of the Fathers of the council, writes books On Grace and Free Will: various judgments of the ancients and of more recent writers concerning them.

[ ] Faustus, at the command of the council of Arles, writes on Grace, etc., The errors of the Predestinarians, against which St. Faustus had strongly set himself before the rest, afforded him the occasion of writing two books entitled with this title: Of Faustus the bishop, on the Grace of God and the free will of the human mind. We have these printed both in other places and in the Lyons Library of the Fathers, volume 8, page 523 and following. St. Faustus did not undertake that Work on his own counsel, but at the request of the Fathers of the council of Arles, for explaining the decrees of that council, that is, those contained in the Epistle recited at number 90: as is clear from the Preface to Leontius of Arles. For thus he begins: "To the most blessed and most reverend lord Leontius, Bishop, Faustus. In that, out of pastoral solicitude, blessed Bishop Leontius, you gathered a council of the highest prelates for condemning the error of Predestination, you rendered a service to all the churches of the Gauls. But in that you committed to weak shoulders the labor and care of setting in order those things which in a public conference you most learnedly brought forth, you consulted too little, as I think, both for so great a business and for your own holy reputation, and you have burdened me with the judgment of charity, and yourselves with the peril of the choice." Thus far the humble Man, according to his modesty, speaks of the command of the council of Arles. Another command was added, after part of the Work had been composed, on the part of the council of Lyons, of which he speaks thus: "In which little Work indeed, new errors having been detected after the subscription of the council of Arles, the synod of Lyons required that some things be added." And so it was by the authority of two councils that Faustus composed that Work.

[105] Of that Work of Faustus Gennadius in his Catalogue makes mention thus: which seem to have been very well received and approved in Gaul. "He published also an excellent Work on the grace of God, by which we are saved, and on the free will of the human mind, in which we are saved. In which Work he teaches that the grace of God always both invites and goes before and helps our will: and that whatever the liberty of the will itself has acquired by labor for a pious reward is not its own merit, but the gift of grace." This eulogy seems to me abundantly confirmed by the books themselves, if they be read through studiously and without any prejudice. But more recent writers, out of that prejudice by which Faustus is believed by most to be a Semipelagian, wish on account of this eulogy to make Gennadius himself suspect of Semipelagianism, especially because he writes less favorably of St. Augustine and of St. Prosper. Here I do not treat of Gennadius. But I think that the books of Faustus (even though I myself thought less rightly of them, before I had weighed all the objections against Faustus and had compared them with the books themselves)

I think, I say, that the books of Faustus are entirely conformable to the eulogy of Gennadius. I scarcely doubt too that the judgment of the prelates of Gaul of the fifth and sixth centuries — nay, and of St. Caesarius himself and of the Fathers of the council of Orange, who condemned the Semipelagians — concerning the books of St. Faustus was the same. For I find no one who through the whole fifth and sixth century in Gaul set himself against his books, and Faustus went on flourishing with a notable fame of erudition and sanctity until his death. Nor does Gennadius seem to have been about to praise the aforesaid books so highly, if the judgments of the Gauls had been contrary.

[106] Nevertheless, against the books of Faustus there is everywhere objected the Decree of St. Gelasius the Pope, [These books do not seem to have been inserted into the Decree of Pope Gelasius himself from the beginning:] in which, in volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], these things are read: "The little Works of Faustus of Riez in the Gauls, apocryphal." If Gelasius himself expressed these things in his Decree, he was the first who withdrew authority from the books of Faustus. But it seems to me more probable, nay almost certain, that these things concerning the little Works of Faustus were afterwards added to the Decree, just as certain other things are believed to have been added, and by name concerning the History of Eusebius of Caesarea, and concerning the writings of St. Cyprian. Certainly in the decree, as it has been published, the History of Eusebius is first reckoned among the books in no way to be refused, but then there is set down "The History of Eusebius Pamphili, apocryphal." The little Works of St. Cyprian are first generally approved: afterwards, equally generally, the little Works of Tatius (or Tascius) Cyprian are declared apocryphal. These things therefore do not seem to have been written at the same time. No more do I think that in the time of Gelasius anything concerning the books of Faustus was inserted into the Decree: for no question had been stirred concerning those books. But if the Works of Faustus had been declared apocryphal by Gelasius, neither Possessor the bishop, nor Pope Hormisdas, nor John Maxentius would have been ignorant of it. Yet all these speak of the books of Faustus in such a way that they seem to have understood nothing at all about that matter, as we shall presently see.

[107] [for, a dissension having been stirred up about them at Constantinople, Pope Hormisdas is consulted,] The first disturbances against the books of Faustus, therefore, were stirred up about the year 520 at Constantinople by turbulent men most ready to accuse, as Sirmond has already observed in his Predestinarian History, chapter 8. Concerning them Possessor the bishop writes to St. Hormisdas the Pope, volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ]. "I judge," he says, "that it is not hidden from your Beatitude with what great snares the Church in the city of Constantinople labors, and[*] that after the manner of an old disease the wound again seeks to break out into corruption, which is believed to have been closed over with a scar. Whence, when the mind of certain brethren was moved to scandal about a book of a certain Faustus, a Gaul by nation, bishop of the city of Riez, who is seen to have disputed eloquently on divers matters and more frequently on the grace of God — with others (as human zeals are) striving against them to the contrary — they believed that I ought to be consulted about this ambiguity. I said indeed that those things which are disputed by treatise-writers according to the capacity of their own wit are not to be received as canonical, nor to be kept as law in place of synodal decrees: but that we have things that are certain, namely those which were written in the old Law or the new, and which have been decreed by the general judgments of the Fathers for the foundation of the faith and the entire firmness of religion; but that these things which divers prelates have written are wont to be assessed according to their own quality without prejudice to the faith." But since, as he asserts, they were not content with that answer, he presently subjoins: "I ask that those consulting may learn, by the authority of an Apostolic reply, what seems right concerning the sayings of the aforesaid Author." And so neither Possessor nor anyone at Constantinople seems to have known even the least about a condemnation of the books of Faustus by Gelasius.

[108] who answers that by the authority of those books Hormisdas answered by the Epistle which follows in the same place, complaining first at length about the turbulent disposition of the Scythian monks, who were stirring up the said contentions at Constantinople, then concerning the books of Faustus, which he seems neither to approve nor to disapprove. For, as Possessor had already answered, he only declares that those books of Faustus, equally with those of other private writers, lack that authority whereby they could bind anyone or bring prejudice upon anyone. The words of Hormisdas are these: "But those who, as you have indicated by letters, have consulted you concerning the sayings of a certain Faustus, a prelate of Gaul, let them have this answer for themselves: that neither he is received, nor anyone whom the examination of the Catholic faith does not receive among the authority of the Fathers; and that neither can he beget an ambiguity of ecclesiastical discipline, nor procure prejudice for religious men. Fixed by the Fathers are the institutes which the faithful ought to follow: whether an interpretation, or a preaching, or a word composed for the edification of the people, if it agrees with right faith and sound doctrine, is admitted; if it disagrees, it is abolished."

[109] [no one is bound: but neither does he call them condemned, nor does he himself censure them.] Both these things and what follows signify this one thing, if I understand anything: that the books of Faustus, as being those of a private writer, are not to be held as a rule of faith or of morals; but that the sacred Letters alone, and the synodal decrees of the Fathers, have that authority whereby it is not lawful to depart from them. John Maxentius, whom that Epistle of Hormisdas drove into a fury, saw that Hormisdas had not answered concerning the books of Faustus the thing which was asked: "For," he says, "whereas concerning those books the question turned not on whether they are to be read, but on whether they are Catholic, this man decrees not what is to be thought about them, but that they are, although not to be held in authority, nevertheless to be read." So Maxentius, volume 8 of the Library, page 543. Wherefore they have wandered from the mind of the Pontiff who would have it that some censure was branded upon the books of St. Faustus by Hormisdas.

[110] Noris, in his History, chapter 19, recites certain other things from the Epistle of Hormisdas, For Hormisdas teaches that by sacred Scripture and by the articles defined and all in such an order that he believes he can infer that the books of Faustus were plainly rejected by Hormisdas, and that the doctrine of St. Augustine was consecrated, as he puts it, and that doctrine especially which is contained in the books On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance. Tillemont, moreover, in article 7 under Faustus, asserts that Faustus was quite openly condemned by the later words, and alleges the words of Hormisdas much corrupted. I shall allege the words themselves, in which I find nothing against Faustus. "Not improvidently," he says, "did the venerable wisdom of the Fathers define for the faithful power[*] what were the Catholic dogmas; fixing beforehand, with the Holy Spirit instructing them, certain things even of the ancient books to be received into authority; lest the reader, indulging his own opinion, should assert not what was fitting for ecclesiastical edification but what his own pleasure had conceived. What need therefore was there for calumniators to extend questions beyond the bounds established by the Church" (namely about the books of Faustus), "and to stir up contests about these things which are held as said, as though they had not been said; when the Christian faith is bounded by the canonical books, and by synodal precepts, and by the regular constitutions of the Fathers, with a stable and unshaken limit." Thus far certainly there is nothing either against Faustus or for St. Augustine. For there are set before us sacred Scripture, synodal precepts, and the regular constitutions of the Fathers, by which I think the canons of the councils are designated.

[111] The Pontiff subjoins: "Concerning free will, however, and the grace of God, by the Church the necessary doctrine of the Church is contained, what the Roman" (that is, the Catholic) "Church follows and affirms, although it can be known in various books of blessed Augustine, and chiefly in those to Hilary and Prosper, nevertheless there are contained in the ecclesiastical archives express chapters, which, if they are wanting to you and you believe them necessary, we shall send." These are the words by which Noris would have the doctrine of St. Augustine consecrated, and Tillemont would have the books of Faustus condemned, as not always consonant with it. The latter moreover makes the Pontiff say "that in the matter of grace and free will the Roman and Catholic Church certainly follows those things which are found in the writings of St. Augustine, chiefly in those which he wrote to St. Prosper and Hilary." But these things are wholly foreign to the mind of the Pontiff: for Hormisdas assigns chapters which were preserved in the ecclesiastical archives, and in all likelihood they are the same as those published under the name of Pope Celestine. He says indeed that in various books of blessed Augustine it can be known what the Church follows; but he does not propose the whole doctrine of St. Augustine concerning grace as necessarily to be followed, as Tillemont hints; still less does he condemn Faustus in the words alleged. That it was in no way lawful to depart from the fixed chapters of the Church Hormisdas declares, as he says above, that the Christian faith is bounded by the canonical books, and by synodal precepts, and by the regular constitutions of the Fathers.

[112] But that St. Augustine wrote things consonant with these he hints: and that it becomes known in some fashion nor yet does he say that all his doctrine is necessarily to be followed, except insofar as it was conformable to the chapters or to the definitions of the Church. But the case was otherwise concerning questions not yet defined, even though St. Augustine had disputed about these too. The chapters, which seem to have been already then defined, were published in Labbe, volume 2 of the Councils, column [ ], and were attributed to St. Celestine the Pope. Some, however, judge them not to be Celestine's, and some prefer to attribute them to St. Prosper, others to St. Leo the Pope. I do not wish to discuss that question at greater length. But I observe briefly that they could have been defined in some council under Celestine, and thus the difficulties are removed which are objected against those who attributed those chapters to Celestine.

[113] from some writings of St. Augustine, But whosesoever those chapters may be, from the last article of them it is clearly perceived that neither all the writings of St. Augustine, nor even those alone which he wrote to Prosper and Hilary, were proposed to the Church as necessarily to be followed; but only the said chapters, of which the last article runs thus: "But the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions that arise, which those have handled more amply who withstood the heretics, as we do not dare to despise, so we have no need to establish: because for confessing the grace of God, from whose work and favor nothing whatever is to be withdrawn, we believe that whatever the writings of the Apostolic See have taught us according to the aforesaid rules sufficiently suffices, so that we by no means think Catholic what has appeared to be contrary to the judgments set forth." To these chapters Hormisdas refers Possessor, as things certainly to be held and believed. But he hints that these were asserted and proved by Augustine, so that by this reasoning it can be known from Augustine what the Church teaches concerning them. But the rest of St. Augustine's doctrine concerning grace Hormisdas does not yet propose as necessarily to be followed: more things, however, were afterwards adopted from Augustine in the second council of Orange, but never was the whole doctrine of St. Augustine, although the Church makes much of it, as we too make very much of it, proposed as necessarily to be believed. Hence as many as are truly Catholic will greatly distinguish between judgments defined by the Church and opinions attributed indeed to Augustine but never defined.

[114] [but that by the authority of Faustus, as of a particular writer, no one is bound.] Wherefore, if anyone shall be willing diligently and attentively to investigate the mind of Hormisdas in that Epistle, he will without doubt find that he took nothing away from the books of Faustus, that he said nothing about them which in the same circumstances he could not have said about the books of any particular writer whatever. For the Pontiff, in order that he might cut off

the contentions that had arisen on account of those books, says of Faustus, "neither is he received, nor anyone," and so forth — that is, no particular writer; but that to the sacred Letters alone, to the synodal statutes, and to the canons of the Fathers, belongs that authority whereby it is not lawful to depart from them. So altogether does Augustine declare to Jerome in Epistle 82 (elsewhere 19), that any writers whatever are so read by him that by their authority alone he is not led to believe, however greatly they excel in sanctity and learning. And he adds: "Nor do I think, my brother, that you feel otherwise: I altogether do not judge, I say, that you wish your books to be read as those of the Prophets or Apostles: of whose writings it is wicked to doubt that they are free from every error." Doubtless this was always the custom of the Church, that no one should be compelled to follow the authority or the judgment of any particular writer, unless it had first been received or defined by the Church. To this, therefore, the whole answer of Hormisdas concerning Faustus is reduced: that he is one writer among many, and that the doctrine of particular writers is necessarily to be followed by no one; that his books can be read, and if he wrote any things well, those may be held; if any ill, those may be repudiated. It is truly astonishing that several moderns have wished to hammer out more against Faustus from the letter of Hormisdas, since John Maxentius himself, the chief adversary of Faustus, was unable to draw more from it, as is clear from his words given at number 109.

[115] From these things let us now consider how incredible it seems that the books of Faustus were declared apocryphal by the Decree of Pope Gelasius. From the things just related concerning that controversy, The pontificate of Gelasius extends from the year 492 to the year 496, and his Decree concerning books is fixed by Labbe at the year 494. But Hormisdas was created Pontiff in the year 514, that is, sixteen years after the death of Gelasius, so that in all likelihood he had already been enrolled among the Roman clergy under the pontificate of Gelasius or earlier. That contention at Constantinople, on account of which Possessor, an African bishop living at Constantinople, consulted Hormisdas concerning the books of Faustus, arose about the year 519, and the Epistle of Possessor and the answer of Hormisdas are fixed at the year 520. But if about the year 494 St. Gelasius with a Roman council had declared the books of Faustus apocryphal, and had done this by that celebrated Decree, which without doubt was communicated to the chief churches; how could so great a contention about those books arise after twenty-five years? By what reasoning did Catholics dare to allege them, if they had been condemned in a council of seventy bishops, and that with the Roman Pontiff presiding? How did Possessor, a most praised bishop, defend those books as Catholic, if they had been condemned by Gelasius on account of Semipelagian errors in a council of seventy bishops, as the moderns would have it? For that they were defended by Possessor, Maxentius says toward the end of his writing against Hormisdas, in these words: "Let Possessor go now, and still, to his own ruin and that of those who agree with him, defend the books of Faustus as Catholic," and so forth. How did Maxentius not object the Decree of Gelasius and of so great a council against the books of Faustus, if by it they had been declared apocryphal, or condemned, as they would have it, for Semipelagian errors?

[116] If anyone should wish to contend that the Decree of Gelasius was unknown at Constantinople, from the question of Possessor and the answer of Hormisdas, it is gathered he will say things neither probable nor credible: for there were not lacking there papal legates, who to remove the contention would have made that Decree manifest, if it had not been communicated from the beginning. It will besides be necessary to say that in Africa likewise the Decree of Gelasius concerning books was unknown: for Possessor was an African bishop, who knew nothing about the books of Faustus condemned in it, and several African bishops, whom below we shall see to be hostile to Faustus, never made mention of the books of Faustus as condemned by that Decree. Nay, in Gaul too the Decree of Gelasius would have been unknown, if by it the little Works of Faustus had been condemned: for St. Caesarius alleged the authority of Faustus in a matter of the highest moment along with the canons of the councils, as we have already seen at number 9. But it is not credible that St. Caesarius would have done this a little after these times, if he had known that the little Works of Faustus had long since been declared apocryphal. Finally, if we should say gratuitously that there was so great an ignorance of that Decree everywhere, even so we shall gain nothing, on account of the silence of Pope Hormisdas himself.

[117] For he certainly could not be ignorant of a Decree composed at Rome about twenty-six years before: [that the books of Faustus had not been condemned earlier by the Decree of Gelasius.] and since he was being questioned about the books of Faustus, which they would have condemned by that Decree, he ought not to have kept silent about it. For thus by an easy answer he would have taken away all controversy about those books. By the very beginning of his answer he makes it manifest that the condemnation of those books would have had to be made manifest by him, if he had known of it. For he thus begins: "As it accords with reason that those in doubt should consult; so it is fitting that those consulted should answer, because he himself drives into error who does not instruct the ignorant," and so forth. Yet Hormisdas said nothing in his letter about a condemnation of the books of Faustus, whereas he ought not only to have testified to it, if it had been true, but in clear words, so as to teach the ignorant and to compose those who disagreed. Wherefore I can think of no other cause for his silence than that nothing had been enacted concerning the books of Faustus by Gelasius, and that what is now read in his Decree was added afterwards. This is also probable in itself, both because it cannot be proved that anyone down to the times of Hormisdas muttered against the books of Faustus On Grace and Free Will, and because it is sufficiently clear that other things too were afterwards inserted into the Decree of Gelasius — namely concerning the History of Eusebius and the Works of St. Cyprian — as I observed at number 106. But if, as is scarcely to be doubted, those things concerning Faustus were added afterwards, we do not know by whose authority it was done. Certainly it does not seem to have been done by legitimate power: for many other things could have been added, if the Decree had been enlarged in the sixth century or later, which was not done. Thus therefore the chief objection, on account of which Catholics of a later age chiefly turned away from the books of Faustus, seems wholly to vanish.

[118] The first accusers of the books of Faustus seem to be John Maxentius The first of all who wrote against the books of Faustus seems to have been John Maxentius, a turbulent man. For when he had seen the Epistle of St. Hormisdas, in which the Scythian monks are sharply censured for the disturbances stirred up at Rome and for their obstinate contentions, and in which the answer concerning the books of Faustus just related is given, he composed a most vehement writing against the praised Epistle, which is extant in volume 9 of the Lyons Library, from page 539. But that he might be able to rage more freely against Hormisdas, he pretended that the Epistle was not his. That fraud of Maxentius, and his ridiculous rashness in calumniating, by which he strives to fasten the Pelagian heresy upon Hormisdas, all everywhere acknowledge, and by name Baronius, Suárez, and Noris. Hence the editor prefixed to that writing such a warning as this: "How impudently Maxentius lies, denying that the Epistle to Possessor is that of Hormisdas the Roman Pontiff; how impiously he calls the author of the Epistle a heretic; how calumniously he arraigns Dioscorus, legate of the Roman See, and Possessor the bishop — men otherwise famous and orthodox — on a charge of the Nestorian heresy; with how many lies, impostures, calumnies, and falsehoods this whole answer of his is stuffed: whoever shall have inspected the Epistles of St. Hormisdas (and) of his legates in that case of the Scythian monks will easily detect it all," and so forth. That these things are true is clear from the writing itself; by which he wishes to make both Pope Hormisdas and the rest who are contrary to his own opinions heretics.

[119] and Peter the deacon, patrons of the Scythian monks, For these causes Suárez, in his theological Work On the Grace of God, part 1, prolegomenon 5, chapter 5, prudently observed that Maxentius in this part is not of great authority, and added another reason expressed in these words: "because he himself is reckoned among the heretical monks of Scythia, infected with the Eutychian heresy." I shall not inquire whether this latter accusation, drawn from Baronius, is true. But I observe that Peter the deacon, and the others who had been sent to Rome for the cause of the faith, are likewise associates of those monks. These, at almost the same time, wrote a little Work for their own defense, and in it they cried out against the books of Faustus briefly indeed, but vehemently, as may be seen in volume 9 of the Library, page 199. Some words I bring over here: "We anathematize," they say, "Pelagius,… especially the books of Faustus, a bishop of the Gauls,… which it is not doubtful were written against the judgment of predestination," and so forth. This Peter the deacon the praised Suárez seems to have held in esteem, because he did not know that he and his associates followed one and the same opinion with Maxentius. Therefore, that the studious reader may understand by what authority private men pronounced anathema upon the books of Faustus, which they grieved were not condemned by Hormisdas, and may know what sort of men they were, I subjoin a few things from the letter of St. Hormisdas to Possessor.

[120] Of those who had been at Rome in the cause of the monks, that is, of the authors of that writing, he speaks thus: whom Hormisdas testifies to be turbulent men and calumniators. "When do men accustomed to zeal for contentions ever acquiesce in peace, loving only to snatch at contests about religion and to neglect the commandments? Never among them is the charity commended by the new precept, never the peace left at the Lord's departure: their one care is for an obstinate purpose, to wish to command reason, not to believe it;[*] despisers of the ancient authorities, greedy of new questions; thinking that the only right way of knowledge is a judgment conceived with whatever readiness: puffed up to such a pitch of swelling that they think the judgment of both worlds must be bent to their own will: not reckoning among the number of the faithful the followers of the paternal tradition, if they see that these are unwilling to yield to their opinion: learned in sowing accusations, in compounding the poisons of detractions, in hating the whole body of the Church, in setting up seditions, in stirring up ill-will, and, in place of the obedience which in monasteries holds the first place of regular discipline, in loving the obstinacy of a stubborn pride." This is part of the eulogy of those writers whom Suárez held in esteem, because he did not know them. Some believe that both these men and Maxentius were addicted to the Predestinarian errors. But from the few things which they wrote about these matters this cannot be drawn out with sufficient certainty. Since nevertheless Peter with his associates in chapter 7 seems to deny a serious will of God to save all, and since Maxentius attacks also those assertions of Faustus by which he teaches that men are not saved by the grace of God alone, but that a man must also work well, each can at least be suspect.

[121] But Maxentius, Peter the deacon, and the others leagued with them, These write against Faustus to the African bishops: since they were in ill repute at Rome, had recourse to the African bishops, then in exile in Sardinia, among whom was St. Fulgentius, both to defend themselves in other matters, and to accuse before them the Semipelagians and with them the books of Faustus. There really were Semipelagians, with whom they contended that Faustus taught the same things, in their writing to the Africans already mentioned. To it St. Fulgentius answered in his own name and that of the others by a book in the Library

of Lyons subjoined from page 199, On the Incarnation and Grace. He discourses on grace from chapter 12 to the end, and refutes various errors of the Pelagians or Semipelagians; but nowhere does he make mention of Faustus or his books, even though he had been so bitterly accused in the Epistle to which he there replies. St. Fulgentius also wrote three other books On the Truth of Predestination and of the Grace of God, to John the presbyter and Venerius the deacon. That John is believed to be Maxentius, as Venerius too is to be believed one of those who stood for the Scythian monks. But in those books St. Fulgentius again refutes the Semipelagian errors, without any mention of Faustus or of his books. He wrote, however, against the books of Faustus also, as we shall presently see.

[122] Of each Work of St. Fulgentius the African bishops are witnesses in the Epistle and St. Fulgentius writes seven books against Faustus, inscribed to John, Venerius, and their associates, which is found at page 229. For toward the end they speak thus: "For the rest, one of us" (who is Fulgentius, from his Life), "so far as the Lord deigns to grant to His servants the grace of right speech, has answered with a sufficient disputation, in three books dedicated in your name, to all those things which you intimated that the aforesaid brethren either hold or say against grace and predestination: and who has also published seven books against the two books of Faustus the Gaul: which when you shall have reviewed, you will straightway recognize how the fabrications of the aforesaid Faustus, contrary to truth and utterly hostile to the Catholic faith, discussion has brought to light, manifest reason has convicted, divine authority has crushed, and the wholly consonant attestation of the preceding fathers has refuted." From these words we have only that St. Fulgentius disapproved and refuted some things in the books of Faustus, which they call false, and contrary to the Catholic faith and to the sacred Scriptures and the Fathers; but not heretical and Pelagian. St. Fulgentius wrote against Faustus as theologians everywhere refute the opinions of others. They try to show that from those opinions certain things follow which are contrary to the truth of the Catholic faith, to the Scriptures, and to the Fathers.

[123] of which the writer of the Life of St. Fulgentius speaks bitterly, The anonymous author of the Life of St. Fulgentius sets out the same refutation of St. Fulgentius in sharper words, writing thus in our volume 1 of January, page 43, concerning St. Fulgentius: "So was he better known to all nations, that the two books which Faustus, a bishop of the Gauls, composed against grace in crafty discourse — secretly favoring the Pelagians, yet wishing to seem a Catholic — were sent to blessed Fulgentius to be assessed, very many brethren at Constantinople having been offended. To which, lest the hidden poison should creep on, he himself replied in seven books, laboring more to expound than to convict, because to expound his doubtful discourses was to convict the arguments of a man raving." That the Anonymous was vehemently animated against Faustus the very style of the writer betrays, when he calls the Man raving whom the books themselves show to be both learned and acute; when he says that he used crafty discourse, as if he professed one thing in words but nourished other meanings in his mind — which I certainly cannot find in the books of Faustus, since he seems candidly to declare his opinions; when he thus makes him secretly favor the Pelagians while wishing to seem a Catholic. But to me there is no doubt that Faustus wished both to be and to seem a Catholic. To the praised Anonymous I shall willingly give credence when he reports the deeds of St. Fulgentius, which he could have known. But I shall by no means admit his assertions about those things which are known to God alone. For in what way could he know that he secretly favored the Pelagians? By what reasoning will he prove that he used crafty discourse in order to seem a Catholic and secretly to favor the Pelagians?

[124] whose sayings St. Isidore afterwards partly adopted. St. Isidore, in his book On Illustrious Writers of the Church, adopted in part the censure of that biographer, saying of Fulgentius and his writings, in chapter 14: "Of which we have read seven books of answers On the Grace of God and Free Will, in which, replying to Faustus, bishop of the city of Riez in Gaul, who consented to the Pelagian depravity, he strives to destroy his profound craftiness." On these words I observe first that in our manuscript codex, which contains the praised Work of St. Isidore along with others like it, all other things are found as they have been published, but that these words are entirely absent: "who consented to the Pelagian depravity." Wherefore it seems doubtful whether they are St. Isidore's, or were added afterwards. I observe secondly that the books of Faustus were in all likelihood never seen by St. Isidore. Certainly he did not insert Faustus into his Catalogue. And so the authority of St. Isidore, even though in other respects he deserves great veneration for learning and sanctity, is not so great in these matters as it might otherwise seem. Honorius of Autun, who saw the Work of St. Isidore, in his own Work On the Luminaries of the Church, number 85, writes these things concerning Faustus: "Faustus, made bishop at Riez in Gaul from being abbot of the monastery of Lérins, a man sufficiently intent upon the divine Scriptures, composed a book On the Holy Spirit, and an excellent Work On the Grace of God, by which we are saved, and others."

[125] From the writings of Fulgentius against the Semipelagian errors If from the other books of St. Fulgentius against the Semipelagians which we possess we should wish to make a conjecture about the manner in which he refuted Faustus, we shall not doubt that St. Fulgentius treated Faustus most gently. For the Semipelagians whom he refutes in the three books praised above certainly held worse views than Faustus: yet he always calls them brethren, never heretics or Pelagians. That their errors were certainly worse (if indeed Faustus fell into error at all) can easily be shown. For from the beginning he refutes those who assert that little ones are baptized by the merit of future works, and that others die without baptism on account of their foreseen sins, if they were to live. That ridiculous error, long since refuted by Augustine, St. Fulgentius refutes at very great length, but at the same time calmly. But that Faustus shrank from it is clear from his sayings in book 1, chapter 14, where he is unwilling to render any reason why of little ones some are baptized and others die without baptism. Then Fulgentius from chapter 14 proves that the beginning of a good will and of faith is from the grace of God; and I think that Faustus held this same thing, even though many disagree.

[126] In book 2 Fulgentius does not touch Faustus, but refutes other errors, it is gathered that he wrote most gently against Faustus, of which he indicates one certainly gross in chapter 18, in these words: "But we marvel, not without great sadness, that these our brethren, who, being ignorant of the grace of God so far as may be understood, strive to make it void, have found for themselves this inept likeness, by which they say that the gift of God's grace is as if someone should lend money, having received a pledge for this reason, that unless he keep it he cannot receive back the debt." Faustus again has nothing like this, nor the other things equally inept which Fulgentius afterwards refutes; but always humanely, always meekly, always as one dealing with brethren: and he uses the same meekness in the book praised before, in which he answered Peter and his associates. And so, from the four praised books in which errors are discussed far more open and worse than are certainly found in the books of Faustus, we most rightly gather that the Anonymous writer of the Life did not gather from the writings of Fulgentius those things which he fastens upon Faustus, namely crafty discourse, hidden favor toward the Pelagians, and dissembling of his own opinion.

[127] For since St. Fulgentius did not reproach with such things those who at least came nearer to Pelagius, nor reproached him with such things as the biographer mentions. it is not probable that those things were imputed to Faustus by him. If we believe the biographer, St. Fulgentius was more zealous to expound than to convict the books of Faustus, that is, his doubtful discourses. Therefore he seems in many of his assertions so to have acknowledged a Catholic sense that they could also be drawn to a perverse meaning; and to have set forth in what sense they can rightly be understood, and in what sense on the contrary they are altogether to be repudiated, as favoring the Pelagians. If he had openly believed the assertions of Faustus heretical or Pelagian, he would have been more zealous to convict them of error, as he does in his other books, than to expound them. Some things, however, in the books of Faustus St. Fulgentius without doubt refuted; but, as the Fathers alleged at number 122 say, as fabrications contrary to truth, and as utterly hostile to the Catholic faith.

[128] Faustus could certainly, in order to refute the Predestinarians, What he wished to refute in them we do not know: have established some dogmas, and those neither Pelagian nor Semipelagian, which Fulgentius nevertheless believed false and contrary to the sacred Letters and the Fathers. He could have expounded some texts of sacred Scripture otherwise than they were expounded by the Fathers. He could from time to time have been less cautious in speaking — so that, while with all his strength he defends free will against the Predestinarians, while he strongly establishes against them the necessity of good works unto salvation, while he maintains that Christ died for all, that God sincerely wills the salvation of all, and either gives or at least offers to all sufficient graces to this end: so that, I say, while he strives to prove Catholic dogmas, he may incautiously have brought forth some words by which he might seem to detract from divine grace and especially from predestination, and which for this cause stand in need of a kindly interpretation, to be sought from his own clearer assertions.

[129] [but from the refutation of Fulgentius it cannot be inferred that the books of Faustus] How very few there are among the holy Fathers who have never written anything which must be brought to a sound sense by a kindly interpretation, and which, if taken alone, would seem to favor some error! And so there was no lack in the books of Faustus of what St. Fulgentius could refute, even if he were believed to have found in them neither the errors of the Pelagians nor of the Semipelagians, nor any doctrine hitherto condemned. For prudent theologians are zealous also to refute all those things which are near to heretical dogmas, which favor the arguments of heretics and are contrary to those of Catholics, and finally all things which they judge false and less consonant with the Catholic faith. Besides, since that Work of St. Fulgentius has perished, we can by no means know whether Faustus erred at all in those things which St. Fulgentius was zealous to refute in his books. In many matters the judgments of other Fathers too were diverse, nor do we forthwith arraign either side of error. St. Augustine assailed the judgment of St. Jerome concerning Cephas, or St. Peter, rebuked by St. Paul, and indeed as no light error. Jerome defended himself, and Augustine returned to the fight repeatedly. If he could believe that there was so grave an error in the opinion of Jerome as to call him a defender of lying, and yet after so many centuries we do not find that defense of lying in the assailed writings of Jerome; anyone prudent will easily understand that it is not at once to be concluded from the assault of Fulgentius that pernicious errors lay hidden in the books of Faustus, or that whatever he wished to refute was rightly refuted.

[130] are Semipelagian, since he separated him from the Semipelagians: Wherefore the assault of St. Fulgentius alone, whose authority is otherwise venerable to us, does not prove either that Faustus is a Semipelagian, or that his books were stuffed with the Semipelagian errors afterwards condemned.

Fulgentius himself seems to have distinguished Faustus from the Semipelagians; since he refuted their errors in three books at almost the same time at which he undertook to examine and correct or refute the books of Faustus in a separate Work. If he believed that the errors of Faustus and of the others were the same, he could have refuted all together in the same Work. But so far was he from mixing Faustus with the Semipelagians that, as I have already noted, in the books written against the Semipelagians he nowhere makes mention of Faustus, not even in that book in which he was answering Peter the deacon, who anathematized the books of Faustus. Perhaps, as the biographer suggests, he expounded the books of Faustus more than he refuted them. "He replied," he says, "laboring more to expound than to convict." This he could altogether do, even if he had been of the same opinion as Faustus, in order to impose silence upon the bitter accusers of those books, John Maxentius, Peter the deacon, and their associates.

[131] nor is it proved from the biographer, or from the African fathers, But, says the biographer, Fulgentius did this "lest the hidden poison should creep on." For Faustus secretly favored the Pelagians, and only wished to seem a Catholic. I judge these things to be worth as much as the calumnies of Peter the deacon and John Maxentius, whose friend the biographer shows himself to have been by speaking honorably of them and adopting their views. The books themselves are extant, from which we understand more clearly that Faustus was an enemy of the Pelagians, than that that biographer, who presumes to judge even of the writer's inward intention, deserves attention. The African Fathers, whose words I gave at number 127, attribute to the books of Faustus "fabrications contrary to truth, and utterly hostile to the Catholic faith." Noris, in book 2, chapter 21, on account of the said words expressed in the very title of the chapter these words: "The books of the same (Faustus) are condemned as heretical by the African bishops." But this part of the title is plainly false, and destitute of every foundation. The Epistle of the Africans alone is brought forward for proof. But in this not a word is made about a condemnation of the books of Faustus, none about a heresy inserted in those books, none about Pelagian or Semipelagian errors in them. Some things are discussed in that Epistle by the Africans against the Semipelagian errors, which St. Fulgentius also refutes in three books; but nowhere is Faustus touched or named, except in the words given at number 122. And so Noris asserts wholly gratuitously that the books of Faustus were condemned by those bishops; just as he gratuitously calls the Epistle synodical.

[132] Nay rather, the praised fathers abstain from all censure even against certain errors, who write without any censure against others, and most gently name their patrons brethren. Besides, if anyone shall turn over more curiously and attentively that Epistle of twelve bishops, among whom St. Fulgentius is not found, nor anyone of great name, he will find that certain things are disputed in it against Maxentius himself and his associates, to whom it is written. I adduce one passage: "But whereas you say that a man is saved by the mercy of God alone; and they say that unless a man run and labor by his own will he cannot be saved; each is worthily held, if the right order of divine mercy and of human will be preserved, so that the former go before and the latter follow," and so forth. I judge that the very doctrine of Faustus and of the Church is here handed down; and that each extreme is condemned; of which the first is attributed to Maxentius and his associates, who in this seem not far from the Predestinarians; the second to the Pelagians and Semipelagians. Nor do they touch Maxentius lightly when they praise the Epistle of St. Hormisdas to Possessor, which Maxentius, in that very writing by which he assailed Faustus, had denied to be Hormisdas's, and had rashly wished to make its author a Pelagian. But by praising this Epistle, and by bringing forward the words in which it is said that concerning free will and the grace of God express chapters are contained in the ecclesiastical archives, they clearly hint that the moderation of St. Hormisdas is far more approved by them than the license of others in calumniating.

[133] In the same Epistle too the praised Fathers bring forward several opinions contrary to the doctrine of Faustus, and only say that some things in the books of Faustus were refuted. at least as to the manner of speaking. Thus contrary to Faustus is what they say: "But he does not think worthily of grace who thinks it is given to all men," and so forth. Contrary to these things Faustus both thought and wrote. Thus below, concerning the will of God to save all, they speak otherwise than Faustus: and thus perhaps they expounded otherwise the death of Christ for all. And so if St. Fulgentius held exactly the same views at that time as the praised bishops, and believed that the same manner of speaking was to be used, he could find in the books of Faustus what he judged should be refuted, and could try to refute it. The said judgments of Faustus, and other opinions of that kind, or incidental questions, even though they detracted nothing from the truth of the Grace of God or of predestination, could seem "fabrications contrary to truth, and utterly hostile to the Catholic faith." For all things seem such which in theological questions are believed false; nor indeed would they be assailed, if they were believed conformable to truth and to faith. Wherefore the praised African prelates neither condemned the books of Faustus, nor called them heretical, as Noris wrongly asserted; but they asserted that one of their number, whom we believe to be Fulgentius, wrote against those books, and refuted some things in them as false. Thus St. Augustine assailed some things in the writings of Jerome: and yet it has not even now been decided whose opinion is the better.

[134] The authorities of the ancients which are moreover objected against Faustus are names only, not persons. St. Avitus did not write against the books of Faustus, Great is the name of St. Avitus of Vienne, whom Ado in his Chronicle, at the year 492, numbers among those who refuted the books of Faustus, and after him Baronius, Suárez, Noris, and others. "Against him" (says Ado of Faustus) "writes with most lucid faith the most blessed Avitus, bishop of Vienne, confuting his error." But since no writings of St. Avitus against the books of Faustus are extant, or ever became known, he must be reckoned to speak of the Epistle of St. Avitus to King Gundobad, in which he answers the king's question, proposed from the Epistle of Faustus, not himself knowing against whom he was writing, as was set out at number 77. The question had some likeness to the books On Grace, since Faustus had denied that men are to be saved by faith alone.

[135] nor any John of Antioch: the errors of Ado about these matters. Ado there adds the following: "Likewise also John, a learned man, a presbyter of Antioch." He speaks of John Maxentius, whom he wrongly makes a presbyter of Antioch. Nor ought this to seem doubtful, since Ado not only had the Answer of John Maxentius before his eyes, but from it also asserted that Faustus had fallen into error; and brought forward the very words of Maxentius to prove it. "For thus," says Ado, "both Augustine and the rest of the Catholics teach free will in the Church of God, that its enlightenment, strength, and salvation are from Christ, and through Christ, and with Christ. But this Faustus tries so to teach Christian free will that its enlightenment, strength, and salvation are not from Christ but from nature." These are the very words of Maxentius, as may be seen in volume 9 of the Lyons Library, page 543: nor do I doubt to declare that this is the first calumny of Maxentius against Faustus, never proved, never to be proved. But Ado, who believed Maxentius, who was not sufficiently known to him, had never even seen the books of Faustus, as is gathered from his words. For he believed that Faustus wrote against the Pelagians, as these words indicate: "trying to destroy the Pelagian dogma, he slips into error." But if he had seen and consulted the books themselves, he would without doubt have seen that he writes chiefly against the Predestinarians, and premises only a few things against the Pelagians, in which he certainly did not err; nor would he have adopted the openly false words of Maxentius. From these things, therefore, we have it that St. Avitus is not to be numbered among the adversaries of the books of Faustus, nor any John of Antioch, nor is Ado of any value in these matters.

[136] Neither St. Caesarius nor any bishop of the Gauls refuted the books of Faustus. Baronius, and after him Suárez and Noris, reckon also among those who wrote against Faustus St. Caesarius of Arles, whose authority would be for me the greatest of all, since he presided over the council of Orange. But that that opinion about some book written by Caesarius against Faustus, which Noris in book 2 of the Pelagian History, chapter 22, inculcates in magnificent words, is destitute of every testimony of antiquity, I have already shown at the twenty-sixth of August, under St. Caesarius, §4. And so neither St. Caesarius, nor St. Avitus, nor any contemporary or nearly contemporary bishop of the Gauls comes to be numbered among the adversaries of the books of Faustus. Nay rather, the bishops of the Gauls, who had impelled Faustus to write, seem to have made much of his books. At the end of his Preface Faustus has it thus: "In which little Work indeed, new errors having been detected after the subscription of the council of Arles, the synod of Lyons required that some things be added." I would not wish to contend that from these words it is legitimately inferred that the books of Faustus were approved by the synod of Lyons, for they were not yet wholly finished, as we now have them, if some things were added after the synod. Nevertheless I could scarcely doubt that either all or some of the Fathers of that council had seen the greater part of the Work which he had already written, when they wished that he should add some things besides.

[137] The praised Noris, chapter 23, contends that the books of Faustus were condemned by the second council of Orange, nor were they condemned in the second council of Orange. which was held in the year 529, with St. Caesarius of Arles presiding. But in the said council not a word occurs about Faustus, no mention is made of his books, I find no canon of that council by which I would dare to say that any judgment of Faustus was condemned. The Semipelagian errors, by which the beginning of faith and of a good will was attributed to free will, were condemned at Orange. But that these were more probably not adopted by Faustus I shall try to prove. Meanwhile Noris would have it that those errors were never condemned or forbidden until Orange, and by that reasoning he acknowledges the sanctity of Faustus, whose doctrine he elsewhere vehemently assails as Semipelagian and as condemned in the synod of Orange. The Acts of that council we have in Labbe, volume 4, from column [ ]; and the Epistle of Pope Boniface II to St. Caesarius, which looks to it, at column [ ]. But neither from the Acts nor from the Epistle of the Pontiff am I able to gather that the council thought of sprinkling any stain upon Faustus.

[138] It is clear from the praised Epistle that there was no lack of living Semipelagians at the time of the council, [in which canons were framed in order that the Semipelagians then living might be corrected.] even among the bishops. "For you indicate," the Pontiff writes to Caesarius, "that some bishops of the Gauls, although they have already acquiesced that other good things come from the grace of God, would have it that faith alone, by which we believe in Christ, is of nature, not of grace." That the canons of the council were framed for their correction is clear from the Preface itself, part of which I bring over here: "It has come to us that there are some who, concerning grace and free will, through simplicity and with too little caution,

and not according to the rule of the Catholic faith, wish to hold opinions. Whence it seemed to us just and reasonable, according to the admonition and authority of the Apostolic See, that we ought to bring forward a few chapters transmitted to us by the Apostolic See, which were collected by the ancient Fathers out of the volumes of the holy Scriptures chiefly in this cause, for the teaching of those who hold opinions otherwise than they ought, to be observed by all, and that we should subscribe them with our own hands. Which when they have been read, let him who up to now has not believed as he ought concerning grace and free will not delay to incline his mind to those things which accord with the Catholic faith." These things plainly hint that the council was held so that the living might be corrected, not that a stain might be sprinkled upon the dead, especially since nowhere is any mention made of Faustus or of his books. For if they wished to condemn the doctrine of Faustus, why do they keep silent about him and his books, and name the living?

Some objections of Noris I shall refute in the very examination of the books of Faustus which follows.

. Perhaps ut*.

. potestate*, I think.

. Perhaps cedere*.

§ IX. Faustus more probably attributes the beginning of faith to grace, not to nature or free will: the appraisal of the much-doubting Suárez is weighed.

Suárez acknowledges that the doctrine of Faustus is defended by learned men, Francisco Suárez, a most learned theologian of our Society, in his Work On Divine Grace, part 1, prolegomenon 5, chapter 5, discusses the doctrine of Faustus ambiguously on both sides, inquiring whether it seems Catholic or Semipelagian. First he alleges several writers who thought not ill of the doctrine of Faustus, and among these Johannes Driedo, a distinguished doctor of Louvain, to whom Sirmond added Ruard Tapper, as others too can be added. "Driedo," says Suárez, "tries to defend Faustus and his books from error: because he did not write against St. Augustine, as some attribute to him;… but he wrote against Lucidus the presbyter, who had drawn various errors from the doctrine of Augustine badly understood, namely that a man is saved by grace alone without voluntary obedience by the force of predestination alone; nay, and that sinners are damned in the same way by the force of foreknowledge and predestination, and the like… Against those errors, therefore, Faustus wrote, first condemning Pelagius and afterwards the extreme contrary error. But he himself professes to walk the middle way, proclaiming the necessity of grace, and joining to it the necessity of labor and obedience: although this labor and obedience is not, nor was under the law of nature, without some hidden gratuitous help, as Driedo interprets Faustus." All these things certainly seem to me exceedingly consonant with the judgment and purpose of Faustus, and altogether certain from the books of Faustus.

[140] and brings forward various arguments, Wherefore Suárez goes on thus: "And this excuse seems to become plausible from many words of the same Faustus. For first of all in the Epistle to Lucidus, which a certain council of bishops subscribed, he says among other things: 'But we, through the enlightenment of Christ, truly and confidently assert both that he who perished through fault could have been saved through grace, if he had not denied to His grace the obedience of labor.'" In the Epistle itself, afterwards reprinted and given at number 91, the last words are read thus: "if he had not denied to grace itself the obedience of a servant's labor." But this reading is not only clearer, but also seems truer. Suárez subjoins: "Where he calls the service of grace the subjection due to grace, and thus sets down the obedience of man as following upon grace and cooperating with it." But much more clearly does it follow from Labbe's and our reading that obedience is set down as following, and as subject or consenting to grace. Meanwhile Suárez goes on: "Whence (Faustus) subjoins: 'We therefore, walking in the middle with Christ as our leader, assert after grace — without which we are nothing — the labor of a dutiful service.' And below: 'He who does not follow this[] measure of truth, with grace going before and effort rising up, will deserve that[] he be kept from the sacred thresholds.'" Thus far Suárez has praised the Epistle, which with Baronius and with all Catholics everywhere he judged altogether Catholic, and which he says was subscribed by a council.

[141] by which he shows Then he goes on thus: "Next, that Faustus wrote to confirm this doctrine is gathered from the preface of the Work, which he calls the Profession of his faith to Leontius, where among other things he says: 'He suitably and wholesomely undertakes the zeal of asserting grace who joins the obedience of a servant to labor' (elsewhere better, 'the obedience of a servant's labor,' as above), 'as if an attendant minister were inseparably to cleave to his patron or lord' (namely to grace): which he declares in many and elegant words and examples." Suárez therefore acknowledges that Faustus wrote to confirm Catholic doctrine. Let me observe a few things here. If Faustus wrote to strengthen Catholic doctrine, he certainly did not write to assail St. Augustine, whose doctrine no one will deny to be Catholic; but to refute heretics, as the council of Arles had asked. Again, if he was zealous to confirm Catholic doctrine and to refute heretical doctrine, his doctrine is not, wherever some things occur that are in any way ambiguous, forthwith to be drawn to the worse side. For since the things which he strives to prove are Catholic, it would rather have to be kindly interpreted if anything occurred in books written against heretics which laboured under a difficulty. To not denying this humanity to St. Faustus we are invited by the consent of the Fathers of the council of Arles, who impelled him to write that Work, and who again in the council of Lyons, when without doubt they had seen the greater part of the Work, exhorted him to add certain other things too against errors which had afterwards become known.

[142] I return to Suárez: "Finally," he says, "in each book that his doctrine is plainly distinct from the Pelagian and Semipelagian, he both absolutely proclaims grace necessary, and attributes the primacy to it: therefore by the former he is distinguished from Pelagius, and by the latter from the Semipelagians. The first part is established from book 1, chapter 1. There: 'I judge that the liberty of the will could not have sufficed for itself alone without the protection of grace, even before transgression violated its privilege.'" I add also the following words of Faustus: "But how can it now suffice for itself alone, to whose arrogance it is said: 'Because without me you can do nothing'? to whose presumption the divine word is directed: 'Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain who build it'?" and so forth. Many other things could be added. Again Suárez goes on, distinguishing Faustus from the Semipelagians: "But the other part is plain from the same book, chapter 5. There: 'The works of the law are made void, which are according to the letter, and those are asserted which after grace are to be done with grace accompanying.' And chapter 6: 'See how he always joins the compliance of labor to the gift of grace.' And chapter XI: 'He who presumes to arrogate to himself either the beginning of the work or the end, to him it is deservedly said: Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain who build it.' Which words seem to contain the very doctrine of Augustine. And in chapter 13 he has that celebrated saying, that grace deserts no one unless it is first deserted by man. And in chapter 15 those words are very much to be noted: 'Note that this very thing, to come to baptism and to desire salvation, is already of faith.' For thus he seems to interpret other passages in which he is wont to say that the help of grace is given to those who desire and knock — namely to those who desire out of faith." Let me here add that this very thing, which is here rightly expounded, occurs very rarely in the books of Faustus.

[143] "And in chapter 17 (nay, and frequently elsewhere) he says that God calls and draws all by grace, plainly distinct, even those who resist, so far at least as in Him lies: 'For although,' he says, 'He foreknew that not all would show obedience, nevertheless to all He had granted both to will and to be able.' By which words he confesses that both to will and to be able in the good works of piety is from grace, although the willing can be hindered by free will, just as it can also be furnished. Whence he subjoins: 'In this place let it be more carefully inquired whether each man wishes to be drawn or not, and that with effect. If he does not wish, he absolutely' (elsewhere, 'in the accustomed way') 'does not merit the benevolence of Him who draws: but if he does wish, behold, now the consent of the man works with God.' And below: 'As it is of grace that he is drawn, so it is proved to be of obedience that he follows.'" I observe upon these things that Suárez took his chief objection against Faustus, along with Maxentius, from the same chapter 17, as if Faustus would have it that a man is not drawn by God through interior grace. But that opinion is not consistent with the "to will and to be able" given to all, nor with the sufficient grace which Faustus would have given to all, as will be proved. A further answer will be given in its place. Suárez adds: "And in book 2, chapter 2: 'It is of His own,' he says, 'that He gives grace; it is of your own that He foreknows the offense.' And chapter 5: 'That they believe is the bounty of grace; that they do not adapt their profession to what they believe is the wickedness of the mind.'"

[144] and free from error. "And finally chapter 8: 'Nothing here, as I think, smacks of presumption, since I also assert this very thing unceasingly, that I owe to God my very will, especially since in all its motions I refer to the work of grace both the beginnings of the commencement and the last stages of the consummation.' And below: 'It is of God's goodness that he is called; of his own will that he readily complies.' All which things certainly seem to have a Catholic sense, and thereby that Author seems sufficiently freed by them from the mark of error." By these things Suárez, if they be taken alone, declares Faustus plainly freed from all error: for he does not merely say, but proves, that he is a stranger to the Pelagian and Semipelagian errors. Nay, he speaks without doubting when he says: "The first part is established." And presently: "The other part is plain." If the words "is established" and "is plain" do not suffice, I do not know by what words at last anyone's mind can be established.

[145] Nevertheless he presently assailed him on account of the authority I am compelled, however, to admit that Suárez presently turns from defender into assailant: the arguments indeed which he gathered for Faustus he does not refute by equally solid theological reasons, but by mere suspicions, which he adopted from others. He does not explain for what cause he at the outset absolved Faustus in such clear words, and why he said: "In each book he both absolutely proclaims grace necessary, and attributes the primacy to it." If he did not believe this true, he does not seem to have been obliged to speak so absolutely, but either to indicate that he was speaking from another's mind, or to hint his doubt by the word "seems" or in some like manner. Wherefore I strongly suspect that Suárez hung in ambiguity, and judged of the opinion of Faustus less from an examination of the books than from the authority of the ancients, whom he too readily believed opposed to Faustus. I suspect, I say, that Suárez brought forward the earlier defense from the very consideration of the books; and then began his assault, because he had read the Annals of Baronius, who raised up many adversaries for Faustus, so that he wished also to withdraw from him for a time the title of sanctity, afterwards restored.

[146] of the ancients, not rightly weighed: For Baronius, at the year 490, against the

books of Faustus, as soon as they were written, at once led out into the battle line the venerable names of St. Caesarius of Arles, St. Avitus of Vienne, John the presbyter of Antioch, and many others, and attacked Faustus so vehemently that he believed he could by no means be defended. All those things Suárez adopted, and from them began his assault on Faustus, adding however theological objections, which we shall presently see. Sirmond, a friend of Baronius and not rarely his helper, when he saw St. Faustus thus traduced, grieved for his lot and wove some sort of apology for him, in which he rightly observes that the first adversary of Faustus was John Maxentius. But Maxentius, whose reasonings against Faustus have come down to us, did not assail him as a Semipelagian, nor did he object to him only the error about the beginning of faith, but errors far graver, and made him plainly a Pelagian, as he did St. Hormisdas too. This is clear from his whole disputation, and from the words given at number 135, which Ado transcribed from Maxentius. Other ancients who accuse Faustus in vague words likewise call him a Pelagian, none a Semipelagian. But he who is said to have assailed Faustus as a Semipelagian — Caesarius — never did so, nor has any of the ancients become known who assailed Faustus as attributing the beginning of faith to free will alone, as the moderns do. If Maxentius and the others who followed him spoke truly, Faustus is a Pelagian. This, however, the moderns do not dare to say, because of its open falsity. But if they believe it false, why do they press the authority of those same men, in favor of what those men did not assert about Faustus? And so, if Suárez had weighed these things more, perhaps he would never have deserted the defense of Faustus given above. For he seems to have turned against Faustus at last for no other reason than that from the Annals of Baronius he believed the cause of Faustus desperate, and drew from the same source the suspicions which he set against his own arguments. Hence, after the authorities adduced against Faustus, which we have examined above, he says that he was infected with the error of the Semipelagians, and that this is understood from the books attentively read. So much does prejudice avail: for from the same books attentively read he had before declared Faustus Catholic; and indeed by arguments far more solid, as it certainly seems to me, than those are by which he assailed him.

[147] What then does Suárez say to those arguments? "For although," he says, and he brings forward suspicions not well founded, "Faustus is zealous to hide his erroneous meaning by ambiguous and equivocal expressions, as is established from the passages alleged at the beginning: nevertheless in many other places he manifestly betrays himself, in that he attributes the beginning of faith or of salvation to free will, and subjoins true grace to it as following upon the good and meritorious use of free will, not as preceding it." If this is true, I altogether acknowledge that the doctrine of Faustus is to be detested. For that this is Semipelagian is certain and beyond doubt to me, as it is to Suárez, with whom I have no dispute about the errors of the Pelagians and Semipelagians, but solely about the opinion of Faustus, namely whether he attributed the beginning of faith to free will and not to the preventing grace of God. This certainly none of the ancients said of Faustus; this Faustus himself nowhere asserted in express words; this he nowhere even indicated in obscure or ambiguous words, so far as I am able to understand. The suspicion of Suárez, that Faustus was zealous to hide his meaning by ambiguous sayings, I can indeed excuse, because he drew it from more ancient writers, but I can by no means admit it as founded. For the doctrine of Faustus was suspect to no one when he was asked by the council of Arles to write against the Predestinarians: for what cause therefore would he not have freely declared what he thought? Besides, if he had held Semipelagian views, how would none of so many bishops, outstanding in sanctity and erudition, ever have detected it in the space of forty years, in which as abbot and bishop he had taught many and written much, before he composed the said books? There is added the notable sanctity of the Man, and the candor shining forth in all his writings, which even by themselves make that suspicion plainly improbable.

[148] But if there is room for conjectures, that one appears to me far fairer and more probable, against which more probable conjectures are given, that the suspicion by which he seemed to some to detract somewhat from divine grace was born from the questions which Faustus had to handle against the Predestinarians. For Faustus had to defend free will, and to refute the fatal necessity which they inferred from grace badly understood. He had with all his strength to establish the necessity of working well and of praying, that we may preserve and increase divine grace, that we may resist temptations, that we may obtain eternal life. The things which he discusses to this end I see objected as though he required those good works for obtaining faith. But the things which he disputes in order to prove that a man can either resist divine grace by a depraved will or consent to it by pious obedience through grace, and that for this cause he remains free, I perceive to be drawn elsewhere too, as if Faustus would have it that a man is free without interior grace, at least for the beginning of faith. St. Augustine, in his books On Free Will, seemed to some to favor the Pelagians, as is clear from the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 67, where he answers an objection of Pelagius drawn from that Work. Again Augustine himself observes this in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 9: "The Pelagians think," he says, "or can think, that we held their opinion: but they think this in vain." And what is the reason? "Because the grace of God was not mentioned," he says. He defends his words, however, from which the Pelagians thought this, and shows them to be true.

[149] more probable ones. No learned man either is ignorant that St. Augustine, while he diligently refutes the Pelagians, seemed to some to detract from free will, but again undeservedly. Wherefore, if the most learned Augustine, although he was most cautious in writing, could nevertheless seem to some now to incline to one opposite side, now to the other, according to the diversity of the questions which he had undertaken to elucidate, we ought to marvel less that St. Faustus was not more fortunate. For he, defending the liberty of the will and the necessity of good works, seemed to John Maxentius, Peter the deacon, and their fellows — whom Baronius, Suárez, and several others hold suspect of heresy, and whom it is certainly established were contentious men — to deny divine grace and to adhere to Pelagian opinions. He seemed, I say, to John Maxentius to deny divine grace; if indeed that man accused Faustus with better faith than he accused St. Hormisdas the Pope, upon whose words a manifestly false sense is imposed, as Suárez observes. Whatever the case, whether Maxentius sincerely believed that Faustus had erred, or whether from the mere zeal for contending, with which he wrote at least the greater part of his Epistle, he wished to assail the books of Faustus, we do not marvel that the books of Faustus could displease a turbulent man. But let us hear the objections of Suárez themselves, and weigh whether they have as much force for disapproving the doctrine of Faustus as the earlier defense has for freeing it from the mark of the Semipelagian error.

[150] The first objection of Suárez, drawn from words badly understood, Passing over the first six chapters, in which Faustus first disputed some things against the Pelagians, and then asserted the necessity of working well for obtaining salvation, Suárez takes his first objection from chapter 7, but manifestly straying from the true understanding of the words of Faustus. He takes these words of his: "The time of grace, in which we were redeemed, did not await the merits of men, did not seek works at all; God was content with the devotion of our faith alone." The words are indeed very obscure, especially if they be torn away from what precedes, as Suárez tore them away, who subjoins this assault: "Where he cannot be speaking of a devotion which comes from grace: otherwise the earlier words too would have to be understood of merits and works done from grace, and thus it would be heretical to say that God in the time of grace does not require works, namely works done from grace." I have said that the words of Faustus are obscure: but they would become much more obscure, if the objection were legitimate. I could wish that a skilled interpreter would explain to me the sense of Faustus's words, if by the words "the devotion of our faith" there is not understood a devotion which comes from grace. But let us rather not seek what will not be found: and let us investigate the true sense of the words of Faustus from what precedes.

[151] vanishes by the mere explanation of the words of Faustus: Faustus refutes an error which he sets out thus in chapter 3: "They say therefore that for the worship and service of God, even after the saving gift of baptism, the obedience of a devoted service is not required, but that grace alone by itself works the effect of human salvation." This error, I say, he refutes, that is, he proves the necessity of good works unto salvation. Then in chapters 5 and 6 he sets out the objections of his adversaries, drawn chiefly from the words of Paul, by which they contended that a man is saved by faith alone without works; and he aptly answers that St. Paul is speaking of the works of the old Law, which were not necessary under the new law; not of the works of faith. "But," he says in chapter 5, "according to the Catholic rule, the works of the law are made void, which are according to the letter; and those are asserted which after grace, with grace accompanying, are to be done." This he then proves at length, and repeats the words objected: whose sense I shall assign by inserted words. Where, before those words, he had taught that a distinction must be made between the works of the law and of faith, and between the times of the Old and the New Law, he subjoins: "The time of grace, in which we were redeemed" (that is, of the New law), "did not await the merits of men, did not seek works at all" (that is, sacrifices and the other works of the Old Law); "God was content with the devotion of our faith alone" (that is, with works alone done from faith and through grace). The works of faith, or things done devoutly out of faith, he calls the devotion of faith, and that these are necessary for an adult man unto salvation he frequently inculcates throughout the whole Work.

[152] Faustus then goes on to another solution of the objections, the second objection of the same man, from three passages, by saying that faith itself too is reckoned among good works, and, having alleged some passages of Scripture, he says: "You note that nothing in the service of God is carried on without work, since he who seems to believe is working." But while Faustus goes on in this way, and acknowledges faith as given to man by God for working well, Suárez finds some words which he might object — in my judgment plainly harmless, and the later ones even clearly fighting for Faustus himself. For he objects three passages in succession. The first is this, brought forward upon the words of Scripture: "He asserted that he was just and lived by faith, because He remembers that He conferred faith and justice upon him who sought them." He adds those which follow a little after: "For as the bestowal of reward looks to God, so the devotion of seeking looks to man." Again these words at the end of the chapter: "He awaits faith from little ones, and requires works also along with faith from those who have been confirmed, yet in such a way that He increases the affection of belief in those who advance, and stands by as a daily helper to those who labor." Having recited these, Suárez subjoins: "Where he holds that the affection of belief precedes the grace of faith, and human labor the grace of works, which he confirms in chapter 9," and so forth. But in chapter 9 the disputation of Faustus is altogether different, as we shall see below. In the words

alleged, however, if I have made any progress by long practice in understanding ancient writers, Suárez wholly strays from the mind of Faustus.

[153] Faustus does not inquire how a man arrives at faith, in which the words of Faustus are drawn into an alien sense, but how he can please God and obtain salvation. He does not investigate whether the affection of belief ought to precede the grace of faith, and human labor the grace of works; but he asks solely whether faith alone without good works suffices for a man to please God and obtain salvation. Again he does not examine whether God requires anything of a man in order to give him faith or grace; but he inquires what obligation God lays upon him by His calling to faith, and what He demands of a man in order to give him glory. For he goes on disputing against those who denied that good works are necessary: but if he says anything from time to time about other matters, he does this only on account of the connection, and therefore, if any words presented a difficulty, they would have to be kindly explained from the clearer ones, and not twisted with such severity against a writer who is overcoming heretics. But let us weigh more amply the words of Faustus themselves, which really have no difficulty.

[154] After the alleged words of Scripture, "But the just man shall live by my faith," and so forth, he goes on thus: "He asserted that he was both just and lived by faith, because He remembers that He conferred faith and justice upon him who sought them. But by saying 'But if he withdraw himself' — when he has voluntarily turned aside to devious ways, it not only lacks difficulty, but in the same place also he did not perish as though abandoned, who ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that pressed itself upon him." Clearly by these words he says that faith and justice were given by God. What offended Suárez, I think, was that "who sought them," as if a previous seeking, and that out of the powers of nature alone, were being asserted. But in my judgment that exposition of the word "seeking" would be gratuitously fastened upon Faustus, who often asserts the contrary. And so God gave faith to one seeking or consenting through grace, according to the mind of Faustus. Grace enlightens the intellect and moves the will to seek and desire faith. If grace so moves that a man consents, and seeks to embrace faith, and embraces it, God grants faith to the man who seeks; but He Himself through grace makes him both seek and believe, yet in such a way that He does not induce necessity, and a man can resist by an evil will. This seems altogether the mind of Faustus, and he seems to have added the word "seeking" only in order to indicate that the liberty of dissenting, if he willed, had not been taken from man by the gift of faith.

[155] Faustus attributes the beginning of faith to grace: The words which presently follow, concerning him who does not consent, confirm the exposition given: "He did not perish," he says, "as though abandoned, who ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that pressed itself upon him." It is a question of preventing grace. And certainly that man who "ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that pressed itself upon him" did not seek beforehand by the powers of nature, but resisted the grace that sought him. But if Faustus believed, as is most certain, that even the unwilling are invited to faith by the mercy of God pressing itself upon them, that is, by sufficient grace, by which they could believe if they willed: by what reasoning could he think that the grace of faith is not given except to those who first seek by the powers of nature? I could allege very many texts of Faustus by which this argument is confirmed, but for brevity's sake I go on to other matters.

[156] nor do his following words contradict it, Faustus goes on thus to another text: "Likewise to the Hebrews: 'But he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.'" "How well," he says upon the words of the Apostle, "has he joined both the office of the Lord and of the servant, by saying, 'and is a rewarder to them that seek Him': for as the bestowal of reward looks to God, so the devotion of seeking looks to man." The reward of God looks chiefly to the other life, and so the devotion of seeking, which Faustus attributes to man, embraces all good works, and those to be done through grace. For he again sets down the observation given against those who denied the necessity of good works. But if anyone should contend, against the intention of Faustus, that he is treating of faith being sought, and let this be granted gratuitously; even so he will never prove that he means this to be done without grace. Certainly Cornelius the Centurion, in Acts 10, devoutly sought the things pertaining to faith, and found faith in Christ: but he did not seek without the grace of God. They too seek faith who carefully strive to learn the articles of faith; but they do this by the grace of God, certainly if they proceed rightly and sincerely. I go on to the last words of the chapter, and shall recite more than were objected, so that the mind of Faustus may become better known.

[157] but rather the later words He recites these words of the Apostle, Ephesians 2: "By grace you have been saved through faith," and then he thus concludes his whole disputation about the necessity of good works along with faith: "And so the first calling requires of us the summary of faith; but the grace of the time that follows enjoins upon the redeemed, the washed, the renewed, the diligence of work and the care of a laborious service, so that what we received without labor we may, with help assisting, keep with labor — the Apostle admonishing, 'See,' he says, 'that you receive not the grace Col. [ ] of God in vain.' Recognize that the degrees of calling and of consummation are distinct. He awaits faith from little ones, and requires works also along with faith from those who have been confirmed, yet in such a way that He increases the affection of belief in those who advance, and stands by as a daily helper to those who labor." I confess candidly that I do not perceive by what reasoning Suárez could have twisted these words into a depraved sense without a vehement prejudice against Faustus. Meanwhile I observe that those words, "He awaits faith from little ones," are not rightly expounded by Suárez as meaning "from those not yet justified." For it is certain that even those not justified, when they have arrived at the use of reason, are bound to more than to faith alone. By "little ones," therefore, he understands none other than those who are properly and strictly called little ones, that is, those lacking the use of reason, and therefore not yet fit for observing the precepts of God. For these little ones faith alone, received in baptism, suffices without good works, since they received freely in baptism not only faith but justifying grace as well.

[158] Hence Faustus not only in chapter 2 defends the baptism of little ones against Pelagius, most certainly prove, and teaches that original sin is remitted to them in baptism; but in chapter 15 also speaks thus: "What shall we think of little ones, to whom, in the devotion of their parents and in the simplicity of suckling infancy, the vigils of an entire faith are reckoned, who without any peril of unbelief obtain the unstained gifts of regeneration?" But from these, who are not capable of good works, God awaits, or requires, faith — that is, in order that He may hold them pleasing to Himself, and, if they die thus, lead them to glory, God does not require that they have good works. But that little ones received faith by no will of their own or by any free will Faustus agrees in chapter 14, where he sets out this objection: "Why among little ones are some baptized, and others snatched away without the sanctification of baptism?" Here the Semipelagians alleged the merits of the little ones foreseen by God, if they had lived, and the sins of others under the same condition. Which error St. Augustine refutes as most inept in the book On the Predestination of the Saints. But Faustus, showing that he shrinks from that error, and by this very thing distinguishing himself from the Semipelagians, answers that this is hidden, and that nothing is found written about it in Catholic reading, and at the end he adds these words: "You propose a subject concerning the account of free will, and you slip by a pernicious error into discussing the state of infancy, in which" (the state of little ones) "no trace whatever of free will, no indication of a will of their own can appear." These are those in whom God requires faith.

[159] But, as he subjoins, "He requires works also along with faith from those who have been confirmed" (in age and in the use of reason). that preventing grace is asserted and required by Faustus both for faith This he had begun to prove from chapter 3 against the Predestinarians, and here he concludes that proof. But he strays very far from the mind of Faustus who would have works or faith here required out of the powers of nature, so that on account of them God may give grace; since most clearly he requires works along with faith in order that a man may please God and obtain salvation; and he would have faith no less than works to proceed from the calling of God, that is, from preventing and assisting grace. This the preceding words clearly hint: "And so the first calling," he says, "requires of us the summary of faith"; that is, God first calls us to faith by His own grace: "But the grace of the time that follows enjoins upon the redeemed, the washed, the renewed" — that is, upon believers — "the diligence of work and the care of a laborious service"; that is, God calls believers by His grace to work well, "so that what we received without labor" — namely justifying grace, received in baptism without merits — "we may, with help assisting" (of divine grace), "keep with labor." What is more certain than that justifying grace is to be kept by us with labor, that is, with the observance of God's commandments, and that we can keep it, not by our own strength, but with the grace of God assisting?

[160] and for good works. "Recognize," he says (to the Predestinarian), "that the degrees of calling and of consummation are distinct." First, namely, God calls to faith, as he had already said, nor does He require our labor beforehand in order to give it to us: and that suffices even for little ones. The other is the grace of consummation. This does not work our perfection without our labor, but requires works also along with faith, yet in such a way that through this grace (God) "increases the affection of belief" (or faith) "in those who advance, and stands by as a daily helper" (through grace) "to those who labor." Faustus does not say that the affection of belief precedes the grace of faith, as from excessive prejudice Suárez believed, but that the affection of belief, given by God in the first calling to faith, is increased by subsequent graces. No more does he say that human labor precedes the grace of works; but that a man is not only called to labor by grace going before, but is also sustained in laboring by grace assisting. And so from this very passage it is proved that Faustus not only uses the words of calling and assisting grace, as Suárez admits, but that by them he also signifies the same things as other Catholics. How can he be seen to require labor or the affection of belief before faith and grace, when he says expressly of these: "what we received without labor"? Faith and justifying grace we received without labor, as Faustus testifies, but we do not keep them without labor.

[161] Some words of Faustus are expounded, Presently, in chapter 8, Faustus begins to argue against those who deny man's free will, as the Predestinarians denied it, and going on in chapter 9 he admits, as often before, that man's free will was weakened by original sin, but not wholly taken away, and he compares it with a man worn out by a long infirmity, and with a man held fast by a perverse habit of sinning. "So," he says, "the liberty of human choice granted by God lost the flower and vigor of its grace, yet it did not itself perish, so that the divine

gifts are not so much felt by it to be forbidden it, as it recognizes that they must be sought again by it with the utmost labor and sweat through the patronage of help." Whether these or other words offended Suárez he does not explain. I suspect, however, that from these words he believed that Faustus was of the opinion that he attributed to the powers of free will the fact that a man can seek again the divine gifts. But that was certainly not the opinion of Faustus; rather he believed that the grace of God is not lacking to those who do not reject it, and thence, as he hints in the words alleged, he judged that man's will is free even for acting well. He had said in chapter 2: "If justice had abounded on earth, the medicine would not have been sent from heaven" (through the merits of Christ, who died for all, for he says these things on the occasion of the death of Christ); "but that the one health might come, a general infirmity demanded it." That Christ died for all he both constantly teaches and solidly proves: and thence he repeats that to no one, except on account of his own fault, is that sufficient grace lacking by which he could both believe rightly and act well, if he willed.

[162] from which the third objection is drawn, After chapter 9, upon those words of Christ, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself," and so forth, he says: "This is to say: it is of my compassion that you are called; but it has been committed to your will that you follow." By which words he again hints at calling or preventing grace. At the end of the chapter, where he had again said some things about the necessity of good works and of the virtues to be exercised, he cautiously subjoins these words: "In saying these things now, we do not make labor equal to grace, but we altogether set grace before it without comparison." Suárez nevertheless found in chapter 10, in which Faustus goes on to defend free will, something to object. Faustus there observes that God gave man liberty so that he could seek evil, if he willed. Concerning good he subjoins: "But if he should desire good, he would ask its performance and perfection from the Creator, while to its reward a dutiful devotion would pertain. And therefore the Fashioner and Ruler of man assigned to man the use of a good will, and reserved to Himself the effect." These words Suárez takes up thus: "Where he places the beginning in the desire for good, whose good use he attributes to free will alone, but to God the perfection and consummation." But again he strays from the mind of Faustus, when Suárez so snatches at what Faustus says about the reward to be obtained in heaven by a man on account of good works, as if he were speaking of a merit of free will, in view of which God would give faith. But that a merit of this sort, of a free will not stirred by grace, was never asserted by Faustus I am firmly persuaded, since I have nowhere been able to find it, and since it does not rightly stand together with what Faustus most frequently asserts and proves, that God calls and draws all by grace, even those who resist, as Suárez himself observed. For by what reasoning is He said to call even those who resist, if He calls them on account of a previous merit of the will?

[163] Suárez subjoins another passage, brought forward in the same sense, as he would have it, to which an answer is given but again straying from the purpose of Faustus. The words objected are: "Help is brought by the kindness of mercy to those who pray and watch, which surely is bestowed on those who knock rather from devotion than from predestination." That "from devotion" Suárez explains as "on account of a good affection." Then he subjoins: "Where he begins to assail gratuitous predestination: for he would have it to be from the merit of free will alone, which he here calls 'from devotion.' And so to grace and predestination he attributes only the effect and consummation." Suárez pours darkness over a passage torn from its place, but an exposition will dispel it. Faustus, who attributes sufficient graces to all, teaches in the same place that these too will not be lacking in temptations, especially to those who diligently pray and knock. But he is not speaking of the beginning of faith, nor of prayer without grace, lest we gratuitously make him a Semipelagian and a Pelagian. And he is disputing not against Predestination understood in a Catholic sense, but against the Predestinarian who says that all things happen by a necessity of origin. He denies that a man necessarily succumbs to temptation; and he alleges this reason: "For as the enemy is brought against all, so to all the right hand of protection and help is not denied, and help is brought by the kindness of mercy to those who pray and watch. Which surely is bestowed on those who knock rather from devotion than from predestination." It is clear, even more from what precedes, that the question is of the help of grace for resisting temptations, and of prayer through grace, not of obtaining faith or of a good affection of free will. Nor either is gratuitous predestination denied when grace is said to be given to the tempted "rather from devotion than from predestination." For by these words it is only asserted that that mercy or grace was indeed predestined from eternity for the man, but was nevertheless obtained by him in time as well by pious prayers.

[164] For, as I have said, he is arguing against those who under the pretext of predestination denied the necessity of good works. the purpose of Faustus being explained, Thus St. Augustine, as he relates in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 15, had someone in his monastery who from the foreknowledge of God drew like conclusions in actual practice, and so far advanced in evil that, having abandoned the fellowship of the monastery, he became a dog returned to his vomit. Against depraved teachers of that kind Faustus, after the words objected, speaks thus: "And so amid these things, does not he who says that grace alone without the exercise of work and labor can suffice seem to you to break out with an alienated mind into this voice of blasphemy? Let no one watch, let no one fast, let no one chastise the assault of luxury by the contrition of abstinence, let no one declare war on vices by outward[] mortification, let no one strive after the wounds of inward care[] by a saving affliction, let no one gainsay lust, let no one seek remedies for crimes by the labor of the flesh worn down, let no one strike back with the strength of the cross at the enemy armed with the allurements of obscene pleasure, but let him expose his bare breast against the fiery darts of the devil; let no one redeem debts liable to eternal death by the sacrifices of almsgiving; let no one bring the care of works of mercy and justice to his wounds, but let him carry them whole to the day of judgment. Behold, he who a little before was thought an asserter of grace is found, by blocking the way of human salvation, an assailant of the grace by which that salvation was conferred, and is shown to have gone over to the counsels of the devil as a helper of perdition." Thus far Faustus, who never speaks of the first grace being drawn by good works, but frequently exhorts to working well through grace, to praying for perseverance in good and for further grace.

[165] from which Suárez What Suárez subjoins is this: "As he repeats in chapter XI toward the end. And more clearly in chapter 12, speaking of the prodigal son": then he gives the words themselves. "As it is of his own crime that he fled far from the eyes of his pious father, so it is of his own devotion that, deliberating and rising up through the good implanted in him, he runs back to his father's embraces." This harmless passage he explains thus, out of prejudice against Faustus: "Where the phrase 'through the good implanted in him' sufficiently declares in what sense he calls devotion an affection proceeding from liberty alone, which he repeats again and again." Thus very severely Suárez, who strives to make the sayings of Faustus suspect by conjectures rather than by arguments. He saw, however, that after the words objected there presently follow others which seem to destroy those conjectures. For Faustus subjoins concerning the prodigal son: "But the grace which had knocked at him as he wandered abroad, itself received him as he returned." Of these things Suárez says: "And so (Faustus) seems to admit that grace goes before, which in chapter 7" (read 17) "he seems to establish in many words." And so by those words "through the good implanted in him" he signifies the same as "through the grace implanted in him," for the grace which knocked made him deliberate and rise up.

[166] strays, Nor do the words of Faustus which he assigned toward the end of chapter XI profit Suárez at all. I bring them over here: "But amid these things, although the servant ought to labor even to the endurance of all evils and the loss of life, nevertheless the effect of the labor is always to be referred to the Lord. But he who presumes to arrogate to himself either the beginning of the work or the end, to him it is deservedly said: 'Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain who build it.' For the rest, as the devotion of an untiring service is to be expected from man, so the perfection of the completed work is to be assigned to the Lord, whose gifts he alone did not have who neglected to keep them." By what reasoning could Suárez believe from these words that only the effect and the consummation of the work are attributed by Faustus to grace, when he most clearly ascribes the beginning also to it? In the same chapter he argues thus against one who denies that grace is given to all: "And how does he proclaim grace, who denies mercy? How does he seem to assert the gift of God, whose help he takes away?" But if grace is given or offered to all who do not neglect to keep it, as Faustus asserts, by what reasoning is he to be believed to say that it is given only on account of a good affection?

. Otherwise, hanc*.

. Otherwise, qui*.

. Otherwise, better, exterioris*.

. Rather, curare*.

§ X. The remaining objections of Suárez are dissolved.

[ ] Suárez admitting it, Faustus asserts preventing grace, After the objections just given Suárez admits that Faustus, by the words just given, "the grace which had knocked at him as he wandered abroad," and so forth, "seems to admit that grace goes before," as he had also admitted before on repeated occasions, and by name upon those words of Faustus in chapter 6: "See how (the Apostle) always joins the compliance of labor to the gift of grace." And these in chapter 13: "Recognize in this place that grace was not so much lacking to the man as denied him; rather the kindness of the Giver deserted the man, having first been abandoned and despised by him. With a certain grief He rebukes the insult of the one who rejects, and thus, when he voluntarily turned aside to devious ways, he did not perish as one abandoned, who ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that pressed itself upon him." I add others. Again in chapter 13, upon these words of John, "Love not the world," and others of St. Paul exhorting to good works, he says: "Unless He had conferred upon him a good affection toward better things" (God) — namely through preventing grace — "He would not have forbidden him the appetite for evil; and therefore he is drawn to the left by his own crime who is called to the right by his Lord." And a little after: "Understand that he received grace, and lost it through negligence." And below: "He who shall have kept with a submissive and careful mind the mercy conferred by God will obtain a fuller mercy." He goes on in chapters 14 and 15 so to prove free will that he constantly acknowledges the necessity of grace, and derives the very liberty of the will only from this, that grace is lacking to no one unless he cast it away by his own fault. I pass over very many other things concerning preventing grace, which he would have given as sufficient to all.

[168] The death of Christ for all and for each Faustus excellently proves in chapter 16, as also the death of Christ for all. beginning thus: "They say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not take human flesh for the salvation of all, nor died for all. This the Catholic Church detests in every way." He distinguished, however, with

the Apostle, writing thus: "But since the Apostle says, 'Who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful': in that he said 'of all men' he looked to the purpose of the divine goodness; but in that he said 'especially of the faithful,' he in this place declared and distinguished those who through faith, through obedience, through a submissive will received the gifts of the Redeemer." And so Faustus did not deny a special benevolence of God toward the elect, as might seem from certain less accurate manners of speaking. He says indeed in chapter 15 that the bounty of God toward believers is not special, and in chapter 10 he asserts that the gift of God is not personal but general and public, and other like things, as if he would have it that grace is given by God equally to all. But by these manners of speaking he seems only to contend that no one is excluded from the grace of God except by his own fault, and that to all there is given or offered sufficient grace for obtaining faith and for working well, as Suárez in all likelihood saw, who did not object them. Of these things therefore I shall say no more, since at least Faustus nowhere seems to deny that the beginning of faith is from grace.

[169] I go on to the chief objection, on account of which, I think, Suárez believed that the words of Faustus objected hitherto were to be drawn into a perverse sense. For with John Maxentius, whose the objection is, he believed that only external grace is asserted by Faustus, The fourth and chief objection is weighed, not internal. "In the same place (chapter 17)," he says, "he opens his meaning and takes away all ambiguity, and by the name of knocking or drawing grace he understands only external preaching and teaching, or the proposal of an object, as is plain from those words of Faustus: 'But what is it to draw, but to preach, but to arouse by the consolations of the Scriptures, to deter by rebukes, to set forth things to be desired, to hold out things to be feared, to threaten judgment, to promise a reward?' Where he plainly interprets preventing grace no otherwise than Pelagius does." This passage, I confess, held me too in suspense. Nevertheless I do not think that the passage was rightly expounded by Suárez. But from other passages it is beyond doubt to me that this is not the opinion of Faustus which he attributes to him. Faustus wished to deny that a man is drawn either violently, or by such a necessity that he cannot resist it: he denied that he is to be moved and dragged from place to place like an insensible and unfit material, as he premises. Then to prove this he set out in the words alleged by what mostly external means God draws men to faith; but he does not deny that men are at the same time moved by internal grace.

[170] and the first part of it is solved from the passage objected, Nay, he seems altogether to acknowledge this in the words which presently follow those objected: "Hear," he says, "the Lord drawing not with hard bonds but with soft hands, and inviting with the arms of love, as the Prophet says: 'I drew them in the bonds of charity.' And that: 'After you we run in the odor of your ointments.' And therefore He says: 'Come to me all you that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you': lest anyone be able to excuse himself as shut out, who is convicted of having been invited. For although He foreknew that not all would show obedience, nevertheless to all He had granted both to will and to be able." These last words Suárez himself alleged in favor of Faustus, and took them up thus at number 143, praised above: "By which words he confesses that both to will and to be able in the good works of piety is from grace," and so forth. This exposition seems certain from the very words adduced; since Faustus says that all are called and drawn, that is, that sufficient grace was given to all, by which they could arrive at faith. For it is certain and beyond doubt that that external drawing was not given to all, but that there were many both under the old Law and under the new Law to whom faith was never preached. Wherefore he could by no means say that all were called and drawn by God, if he had not acknowledged a calling and a drawing by internal grace, which he abundantly declared by the "bonds of charity," by the "odor of ointments," and by those words, "Come to me all," and so forth. Between drawing and preventing grace Faustus so distinguished, as far as appears, that God's drawing, besides internal grace, has for the most part some external aids joined to it. But that these are such that they no more impose necessity upon a man than internal grace does, he observes against the heretics. In these things Faustus accords excellently with St. Augustine, as I shall show.

[171] and from Augustine, who speaks likewise: St. Augustine, in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 19, observes that it has been granted to very few that, with no man preaching to them, they receive the doctrine of salvation through God Himself or through the angels of heaven; but that to many it has been granted to believe God through men. "Yet in whatever manner the word of God be spoken to a man, without doubt that he so hear it[*] as to obey it is the gift of God." In these words Augustine makes no mention of the internal grace by which a man is moved to believe. Shall we therefore say that conversion is ascribed to preaching and to man's free will alone? Surely no one will do so who knows the doctrine of Augustine concerning grace. Why therefore was it lawful for St. Augustine to ascribe a man's conversion to external preaching, and to call the conversion which followed that preaching the gift of God, with all mention of internal grace omitted: and why was the same not lawful for Faustus, if indeed Faustus omitted internal grace? For, as I have said, he altogether indicated it by the alleged words of Scripture, "I drew them in the bonds of charity," and so forth. And so, as Augustine says that it has been granted to many to believe God through men, with the grace of God at the same time stirring them within: so Faustus says that many are drawn by the words of preachers, but with the grace of God at the same time working. If anyone should say that many were drawn to faith by the preachings of St. Paul, he would speak the truth: but he would not deny the grace of God working in their hearts.

[172] If the objections of Suárez were legitimate, I do not see the other parts of the objection, how Faustus would not have to be held a Pelagian rather than a Semipelagian, as that man, who seems to have known nothing of the sanctity of Faustus, thereafter dissembles no more than Maxentius, whom alone among the ancients he has as his guide. Hence after the words already explained he says of Faustus: "Where he plainly interprets preventing grace no otherwise than Pelagius does. Whence he subjoins" — namely Faustus, but after many things interposed — "'As it is of grace that he is drawn, so it is proved to be of obedience that he follows.'" The words are plainly harmless, and were adduced by Suárez himself, praised at number 143, to prove the sound doctrine of Faustus concerning preventing grace. But out of the prejudice that Faustus did not admit internal preventing grace — which has just been denied — he finds here two errors, subjoining these words: "Where he errs in two ways: for he does not acknowledge a true grace drawing internally, and he holds that the will suffices of itself for obeying external preaching, at least inchoatively, so to speak, 'so that he who is called may be able to be grasped and drawn by a certain little handle of the will.'" These last words are Faustus's, who would altogether become a Pelagian if they were rightly objected. For these words precede: "But He whom you perceive drawing requires in every way one who keeps the precepts, so that by a certain," and so forth. And so the sense of Faustus is not that God requires one who keeps the precepts in order that He may draw him; but that God draws him in order that he who is drawn may keep the precepts: by "a certain little handle of the will" he understands the consent of the one drawn, without which the drawing lacks effect.

[173] Then he objects these earlier words of the same chapter: added on account of the first, "To the Lord who stands by and calls, the servant stretches out the hand of faith by which he may be drawn, and says: 'I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.'"[*] The words in my judgment are again harmless. For these precede: "Is he to be moved and dragged from place to place like an insensible and unfit material? But to the Lord who stands by and calls, the servant stretches out the hand of faith by which he may be drawn," and so forth. Nothing is signified by these words except that a man consents by a free will, stirred and helped by grace, to God calling through grace, so that the calling may obtain its effect. Suárez adds the following words of Faustus: "And thus these two are joined, the power of Him who draws and the affection of him who obeys, as if some sick man should try to rise up, and his ability should not follow his purpose, and therefore he should beg that a right hand be stretched out to him. The will cries out, because infirmity does not know how to be lifted up by itself alone. Thus the Lord invites the willing, draws the desiring, raises up the striving." The words have some obscurity from the added comparison, which limps, as all do everywhere. Nevertheless it seems certain to me that in the conversion of a man, which is here set out by degrees, the first part is attributed by Faustus to stirring or drawing grace. This Faustus indicated at once at the beginning of the chapter in these words: "'No man,' He says, 'comes to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him.' Who would be so forgetful of his own salvation as to presume to deny the mercy of Him who draws? But he is truly impious who does not testify that it is pressed upon all, that it is bestowed upon all." If Faustus would have the mercy of Him who draws pressed upon all, as the words clearly have it, he cannot demand that man's effort go before. And so he acknowledges that in the conversion of a man the drawing is first in order, but he observes that it is such that it does not impose necessity, nor obtain its effect without the free consent of the man. The comparison with the sick man is not brought forward for the beginning of conversion, but for the time at which a man begins to consent to grace, and at the same time to ask God for consent or for a perfected conversion.

[174] vanish when the passage is duly explained. The whole passage seems to have the sense which I shall assign by inserted words. "To the Lord who stands by and calls" (through preventing grace) "the servant stretches out the hand of faith by which he may be drawn" (by consenting), "and says: 'I believe, Lord, help my unbelief.' And thus these two are joined, the power of Him who draws and the affection of him who obeys: as if some sick man should try to rise up, and his affection should not follow his purpose, and therefore he begs that a right hand be stretched out to him. (Thus, namely) the will cries out" (stirred by grace, that God may give assisting grace) "because infirmity does not know how to be lifted up by itself alone. Thus the Lord invites the willing, draws the desiring, raises up the striving": namely one willing, desiring, striving through the grace which he obeys; not one previously willing, desiring, or striving. This seems clear, since he had said before that grace is pressed upon all. And yet not all wish to be invited, not all desire to be drawn, not all strive to be raised up: but very many resist grace. Grace therefore is given before they will, desire, and strive, according to the mind of Faustus, but it makes some willing and finds others resisting. All those things, I think, would not have offended Suárez, if from the words expounded above he had not believed that internal drawing is denied by Faustus. For he admits that in this very chapter 17 Faustus seems in many words to establish that very thing which he had often said before, that grace goes before. Hence, divining much about the opinion of Faustus, he says: "Where he sets up this order between grace and free will, that the calling go before

by some external preaching, or in some other like manner, and then God is understood not as helping but as standing by, and as it were waiting, so that thereafter the man may begin to believe imperfectly and to call upon Him by his own liberty, and at last God may begin to help him by grace unto progress." All these conjectures, I say, and the others which he presently subjoins, flow from the argument of Maxentius adopted by Suárez, by which they would have it that he substituted preaching or some other external thing in place of internal preventing grace.

[175] With St. Augustine, whose words are given, St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 34, explains the effects of divine grace and of free will in the man who is converted in this manner: "Let him attend and see that this will" (by which we believe) "is to be attributed to the divine gift not only because it is of the free will which was created with us naturally, but also because God works by the persuasions of things seen that we may will and believe — whether from without through evangelical exhortations, where the commandments of the Law too do something, if they so admonish a man of his own infirmity that by believing he may flee to justifying grace; or from within, where no one has in his power what comes into his mind, but to consent or dissent is of his own will. In these ways therefore, when God acts with a rational soul that it may believe Him — for it cannot believe anything by free will if there be no persuasion or calling for it to believe — assuredly God works in a man even the very willing to believe, and in all things His mercy prevents us: but to consent to the calling of God, or to dissent from it, as I have said, is of one's own will. Which thing not only does not weaken what was said, 'For what have you that you have not received?' but even confirms it. For the soul cannot receive and have the gifts of which it hears this, except by consenting: and through this, what it has and what it receives is God's; but to receive and to have belongs assuredly to the one receiving and having." Thus far St. Augustine.

[176] If now we compare the sayings of Faustus with the words of St. Augustine, Faustus seems to have thought the same about these things. each will seem to think the same. Each observes that men are for the most part called to faith by God through external preaching, but each also hints that this alone does not suffice for a man's conversion without internal grace or calling. Augustine hinted this by these words, "or from within, where no one has in his power what comes into his mind." Faustus hinted the same, both by the "bonds of charity" and by the "odor of ointments," and more clearly by those words, "As it is of grace that he is drawn, so it is proved to be of obedience that he follows." For that internal and previous grace is signified, the word "obedience" altogether hints, and further the word "follows." For a man obeys God speaking within him, and follows the internal motion of God. And certainly in book 2, chapter 10, concerning Nineveh repenting he says: "For that great city did not come to its senses by the learning of Jonah, nor did it receive from his admonitions an understanding of the salvation to be sought," and so forth. In what way then? "And all this in man an inner fire, implanted by God and nourished by the man with the grace of God, works." To external preaching he opposes internal grace, and observes that by this the Ninevites were drawn to penance. By what reasoning therefore shall we believe that in the passage objected he wishes to thrust preaching alone in place of God's drawing? Faustus used also the very words of Augustine, "from without" and "from within," in book 2, chapter 7. I pass over other things suitable for confirming this, and I observe thirdly that concerning the necessity of a man's consent, in order that grace may have its effect, and concerning man's power of consenting or dissenting, St. Augustine accords entirely with Faustus.

[177] The first book having been examined, Suárez passes to the second, The fifth objection is weighed, and, omitting the earlier chapters, in which Faustus teaches that by neither the foreknowledge nor the predestination of God is a necessity to good or evil brought upon men, he recites and objects other things from chapter 3, where Faustus goes on to do the same. "In chapter 3," says Suárez, "he professedly proves that predestination is from the foreknowledge of some human merit." I answer that I do not find this; but that Faustus proves first that foreknowledge is one thing and predestination another; secondly, that by neither is necessity brought upon man. Thirdly, he does not seem to speak of any predestination other than to glory and to punishment, and he proves that by grace or predestination alone, without works, a man is not brought to salvation, as this objection shows, to which Faustus at the end answers: "But you say: I find where grace alone works without the fellowship of the human will. For at Bethlehem the whole people of the innocents obtains so blessed a death from the predestination of God alone." This objection, I say, shows that Faustus is there doing the same thing that he does in the whole Work, namely that a man possessed of reason is not saved by grace alone without good works. Concerning baptized little ones, however, he does not deny it, but acknowledges it in various places. And concerning those slain at Bethlehem he answers: "Death is brought upon the boys by the fury of the devil, but a most blessed death is conferred for the honor of God," and so forth. His words, which Suárez snatched at, are these: "It is the will that works the offense: it is the will that merits help." But from what precedes it is clear that these things are said by Faustus in a sound sense. For these words precede: "Is He then" (God) "to be believed the author also of the things of which He is the avenger? and amid these things is He to be judged to urge to evil the assent of a captive will, who did not permit even the devil to compel the unwilling? It is the will," and so forth. He denies that God is the author of sin, and attributes it to the will. But that the will works the offense no Catholic will deny. That the will too, helped by grace, by working well or by praying, merits further help de congruo, as the theologians say, the theologians acknowledge with St. Augustine, who in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 6, says of the gift of perseverance itself: "This gift of God therefore can be earned by supplication."

[178] and is solved, Suárez believed that Faustus was speaking of a will not yet raised up by grace. Thus certainly he wished to explain the words of Faustus which he objects from chapter 4, as follows: "To obedience belongs the labor, but the fruit of the labor belongs to grace." Nevertheless the words of Faustus, if they are rightly considered with their context, have no difficulty. For he does not put man's labor before grace, but before the reward. Faustus there proves that God is merciful and just toward all men; merciful, because He has given to all sufficient helps of grace unto salvation; just, because He sets a reward before the obedient, and because He saves no one against his will. Then he subjoins: "And so the Apostle magnificently joins the duty of labor to the gift of grace, saying thus: 'The husbandman that laboreth must first partake of the fruits.'" Of these words of the Apostle he says: "To obedience belongs the labor, but the fruit of the labor belongs to grace." Then for confirmation he adds this passage of the Apostle: "Every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labor." All these things he directs to this end, that he may show that a man will not come to salvation without good works. But to prove that the very reward of good works flows from grace, he subjoins the words of the Gospel, Luke 17:10: "So you also, when you shall have done all things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do"; but he abridged them somewhat, selecting only what was necessary for his purpose.

[179] and the doctrine of Faustus is confirmed from Augustine, It is the very doctrine of St. Augustine which Faustus there gives. For in Epistle 186, written also in the name of Alypius, St. Augustine in chapter 3 speaks thus: "When therefore faith obtains justification… no human merit precedes the grace of God, but grace itself merits to be increased, so that being increased it may merit to be perfected, with the will accompanying not leading, following not going before… Nor does (a man) merit greater things for any other reason than by piously and faithfully knowing from whom all good things are his… And through this the very merit of a man is a gratuitous gift. Nor does anyone merit to receive any good from the Father of lights, from whom comes down every best gift, except by receiving what he does not merit." Thus Faustus says that the labor is of obedience, and that the fruit of the labor — whether the increases of graces in this life, or glory in the other life — is of grace. Hence after a few words he subjoins: "With all my strength therefore I labor: but whatever I shall have received from the bounty above, I shall reckon to grace, not to my own industry; I shall call it a benefit, not a price; I shall testify that it is a gift, not a debt; a remuneration, not a repayment." He could not have expressed the sense of St. Augustine more clearly.

[180] From chapter 6 Suárez objects these words: "But Abel also was zealous to please the divine sight through the good implanted by God generally, The sixth objection, from the words of Faustus which presently follow, that is, he merited through the affection of his own will." I add other words which he objects from chapter 7, where they are read thus: "How many before the Law of the letter, with the law of nature teaching them — which (as we have said) is the first grace of God — entered the vestibules of salvation, to be led through Christ to the very inner chambers of life"; and, that the sense may be complete, I add the preceding words: "we ought to touch upon." Suárez objects these things as if Faustus were handing them down concerning the cause of predestination. But Faustus there proves that not even under the Law of nature were men bound by a fatal necessity to sinning, but that at that time too the sufficient grace of God was not lacking, by which they could know God and observe His commandments. To prove this he alleges several men, and among them Abel, whom he teaches to have pleased God not through a will lacking grace, but through faith and grace received from God. That we may see this, I bring over here the words which follow those objected: "This man therefore, to whom the perfection of an unstained life gave the surname of the Just, by whose teaching would he have become a follower of justice, unless the Law inscribed on his inmost parts had taught him? or whence would he have known to choose from the fat and the firstfruits victims that would please God and be consumed by fire from heaven, unless the faith which had made him a lover of the virtues had inspired him — as we read: 'By faith Abel offered a greater sacrifice than Cain, God giving testimony to his gifts.' Which he could by no means have obtained, unless the compliance of a servant had been added to the gift of the Lord. And do you judge that he has nothing of his own by the ordinance of God, to whose devotion God bears testimony? Do you see that the good of belief is no new privilege, but an ancient one, and that amid the very beginnings of the coalescing world the mind of man was endowed by the highest Author with faith as well as with understanding and reason?" Thus Faustus.

[181] The words alleged altogether prove that it is faith, and consequently grace, and by other passages of Faustus by which Faustus says that Abel pleased God: they further prove that faith is established by him as the Lord's gift, and a privilege, and

that the mind of Abel was endowed by God with faith. But that Faustus attributed these gifts of God not to nature but to grace becomes manifest from chapter 7. For, speaking of the perfections of God and the virtues of men, he says: "But man does not have these gifts unless he has received them." And a little after: "A man can be just, he cannot be justice; he can be merciful, he cannot be mercy; he can be pious, he cannot be piety; because he does not have these things naturally, but by the bounty of the Word's grace." The last words are faulty, and I think we must read: "but with the grace of the Word bestowing them." And presently: "And in man that is grace which in God is nature, namely virtue." And again concerning the virtues: "For they are manifestly found to be added, since, when faults intervene, they are stripped away." But that these graces were given to men out of the merits of Christ he likewise hinted in chapter 7 in these words: "Then this too must be carefully noted, that our Lord Jesus Christ in the first time" (that is, in the time of the law of nature and of Moses) "conferred better things from His own" (namely graces); "but in the second He took worse things from ours" (human nature). And so by those words objected by Suárez, "through the good implanted by God generally," Faustus understands the same as if he were saying, "through the grace given to all" — namely to all who do not resist it — and by those words, "through the affection of his own will," he understands an affection working from grace. Thus in chapter 4 he said of God: "He is therefore merciful" (toward all), "because He presses even upon the wicked the understanding of reason and the affection of goodness" — that is, enlightening and stirring grace. To these things it can be added that Faustus teaches that Christ died no less for the men of the ancient Law than for others, and merited sufficient graces for them also.

[182] wholly vanishes, The second passage, in which the Law of nature is called the first grace of God, and many are asserted, with it teaching them, to have entered the vestibules of salvation, has no difficulty, if we attend to the purpose of Faustus. For he proves that the men of old could be instructed by the Law of nature concerning the things which were to be done or not done by them: but he by no means asserts that there was no other grace under the Law of nature, or that the Law of nature alone without other grace sufficed for men unto salvation, or even for obtaining faith. For these things directly conflict with the doctrine of Faustus handed down everywhere throughout the whole Work concerning the death of Christ for all, and concerning sufficient grace given, or at least offered, to all. Nay, he openly says in chapter 10 that it was internal grace by which the Ninevites believed, and that it was given on account of the foreknown merits of Christ, "because the Law neither of the letter nor of nature brought anything to perfection." Faustus therefore believed that men came to faith, to perfection, to salvation, not by the precepts of any Law alone, but by internal grace. But that he calls the Law of nature the first grace he does for this reason, that he believed that grace and faith were given by God to man along with that Law. For a little after he says that "faith itself was handed down along with the Law of nature" (to Enoch). And in chapter 8, upon those words of the Apostle, "By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the unbelievers," he argues thus: "Whence are these men, placed outside the Law" (of Moses), "accused of unbelief, except because they were unwilling to keep the Law of nature, to which faith is joined? Whence is unbelief objected, except because the faculty of believing was at hand" (namely through grace, which they cast away)? But that this faculty of believing is derived by Faustus from grace offered to all I shall confirm by yet another argument in answer to the following objection.

[183] as also the seventh Suárez objects these words: "Unless He sought a voluntary devotion and intention, He would not bestow a reward upon a man, and unless He had granted him something of his own" (in the Library of the Fathers, "something beforehand") "whereby he might be able to please." But whether "beforehand" be read, or "of his own," I do not find what in the words alleged could have displeased Suárez, nor does he himself declare it. Certainly that passage, especially if what precedes be considered, seems rather to prove that the doctrine of Faustus concerning the beginning of faith is Catholic. For from the justice of Enoch he proves that faith was given him by God. And he argues thus. Enoch pleased God; but he could not please God without faith. The obvious conclusion was: therefore he had faith. But, in order that he might at the same time teach by whose gift Enoch had received faith, he preferred to infer thus: therefore he received faith from God. But if he had been in the error which the moderns impute to him, he would have inferred: therefore by a good affection, or by a good use of free will, he merited faith. But this error I have not been able to detect in the whole Work of Faustus.

[184] to which, from the whole passage recited, But the words of Faustus, which involve the syllogism given above, I bring over here: "For whence could Enoch have walked with God, or pleased God, unless the Law poured into his inmost parts had enlightened him by a secret teaching, so far that, savoring nothing earthly, he was wondrously caught up by God taking him? Who, while by the merit of faith he excels the rest in that first age of the world, thoroughly teaches that faith itself was handed down to him along with the Law of nature. As we read: 'By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. For before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him.' Unless He sought a voluntary devotion and intention, He would not bestow a reward upon a man, and unless He had granted him something beforehand whereby he might be able to please."

[185] The syllogism given above any logician will easily find in the words alleged. the doctrine of Faustus concerning the beginning of faith is proved Catholic. But from the words of the Apostle, "and is a rewarder to them that seek Him," Faustus added another observation, namely that from the reward which God promises he infers man's liberty, that is, that God is unwilling to bring necessity upon man, but wills that man render free services. From that liberty he further infers that God first gave to man whereby he might be able to please, as if he were saying: God would not demand good works from man, unless He had first given him helps, that is, sufficient graces by which he could accomplish them, as he elsewhere often inculcates. But since the reward looks chiefly to the other life, or in this life to the increases of justifying grace, God first grants both faith and actual graces, so that a man may be able by working well to obtain that reward. And so Faustus does not seek the cause of predestination to faith or to the first graces, as Suárez suspects, but the causes of merits, after which, foreseen, a man is predestined to glory, as many theologians teach even at this time. For he places the graces for believing, and faith itself, among those things which God grants beforehand to man as necessary for meriting, so that he may acknowledge these to be plainly gratuitous. There remain two texts objected by Suárez, by which he wishes to prove almost the same thing against Faustus.

[186] The first is this, from chapter 10 (not 26, as it is wrongly printed): The eighth, likewise straying from the mind of Faustus, "This alone is ours, that we who by reason of frailty are not fit, may at least please by the importunity of seeking and knocking." Then Suárez says: "But this he calls ours, because we are fit for it, namely without grace." But the intention of Faustus is plainly other: for he is treating of grace or justice to be increased and preserved, and of glory to be earned. Therefore he exhorts to prayer, but by no means says that it is ours to pray without grace; rather he most clearly hints that this is to be done through grace. I subjoin the passage with what precedes. "And therefore that perfect providence (of God), which in this age delights in the exercises of the virtues, judged it most orderly and most worthy of His wisdom that man, created unto the dignity of the sacred image, should here first be tested by contests and conditions, but there (in heaven) be filled with gifts and repayments: so that, when the servant had shown obedience in labor, the Lord might show justice in remuneration: so that, when human infirmity had offered a humble devotion, the divine power might exercise an ineffable bounty. Continually therefore must we labor: but we must not depart from grace; and we must say: 'O God, come to my help.' The very word of help therefore requires the duty of those who labor.

[187] "And so the word of help indicates two, one working and one cooperating, with another observation equally straying, one asking and one promising, one knocking and one opening, one seeking and likewise one repaying. This alone is ours, that we who by reason of frailty are not fit, may at least please by the importunity of seeking and knocking." All that follows too shows that Faustus wishes us to pray frequently for persevering in good and for obtaining heavenly glory. So St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 32, says that Christ admonished men "to ask, to seek, to knock, that they may receive," and so forth. But each addresses the faithful, each wills that those things be done through grace. It is not a question of obtaining the first grace by the powers of free will, but of perseverance in good and eternal life through the help of grace. Moreover, from the words alleged, "And so the word of help indicates two, one working and one cooperating," and so forth, Suárez afterwards forms another objection, or rather thus divines about the judgment of Faustus: "But by the help or cooperation of grace he understands some grace subsequent to human merit, and in some way promoting free will to a further perfection." I answer that these things stray far from the mind of Faustus: and that Faustus takes his argument from the very name of Help, or of assisting grace, in order to prove that a man is not saved by grace alone, but that he too must work well along with grace: for no one is helped in acting unless he himself acts at the same time. This I wished to observe here, lest the same words should have to be produced again.

[188] as also the ninth, collapse when the words are recited in full. The last passage objected by Suárez has the appearance of a great difficulty, as it is read abstracted from the rest of the context, but it lacks any true difficulty if it be rightly considered with the rest. The words are these: "Unless the devotion of obedience has gone before, the offering of grace becomes cheap." Suárez calls these words "to be noted." They are certainly to be noted, just as these of the Apostle are: "No one shall be crowned unless he has striven lawfully." But he is vehemently deceived who thinks that Faustus by the words "the offering of grace" understands either some first grace or faith, since most clearly by those words he there designates eternal beatitude, that is, heavenly glory. For at the end of his Work Faustus brings in the divine perfections as though consulting about the creation of man, and about the qualities to be given him that he may be able to be blessed: and, after the others, Justice speaking thus, so as to persuade that free will must be given to man, so that the keeping of the precept may be the way and the cause of the reward. Many reasons are brought forward: but I allege only the words which immediately precede and follow those objected. "And besides, the reward

perishes where merit does not go before. He cannot keep our goods who does not know how to acquire them. Unless the devotion of obedience has gone before, the offering of grace becomes cheap. And at the same time it is a shame to the rewarder, if the idle man be honored, if the slothful be rewarded. Nay rather, with help cooperating, let him become worthy by his own work as well, and with a good conscience be blessed," and so forth. There can be no doubt that it is a question of the manner in which God wills a man to arrive at the blessed life, and that there is no question there of faith or of first grace. Hence that whole disputation and the Work of Faustus ends thus: "For He judged it worthy" (God) "that man, who as a weak being was unwilling to sin, should not be able to be eternal: but that, as the ages glide on immeasurably, there should be joy without fear, a reward without envy, a kingdom without an enemy."

[189] Other sayings of Suárez, Thus far I have tried so to expound the passages objected by Suárez that I have omitted nothing, and even so have found only one or two texts which present any difficulty: but that difficulty too is wholly removed by several passages of Faustus. Suárez, however, has not yet made an end of assailing Faustus: but the things which at the beginning he built up for the sound doctrine of Faustus by solid arguments, he strives to destroy by conjectures, premising nevertheless some things concerning his assault, already refuted, in this manner: "From which expressions, if only one or two were found in this Work, it could piously be drawn to a good sense by explaining, for example, the necessity of labor and of voluntary obedience as of that which is furnished with the help of God." On these things I observe that the passages of Faustus concerning the necessity of labor and of obedience can not only be so piously explained, but altogether must be so explained, if we are unwilling to stray from his purpose. For throughout the whole Work he proves that a man is not saved by grace alone, but that grace must be obeyed, that grace is given so that a man may work well, and that good works too are necessary unto salvation. Nay, in many places he proves that a man is made free for working well, because grace is lacking to none. How will he be free for working well through grace, if he must work without grace? How does he so studiously prove the death of Christ for all, so as to infer that to no one, except on account of his own fault, is the power of working well lacking, if he means that a man must labor without grace? And so I shall not make much reply to the following words of Suárez. "Nevertheless," he says, "amid so great a multitude of opinions, and so many ways of explaining them against the doctrine of Augustine, no pious interpretation has place, especially because that Author at the same time tries to refute the testimonies of Scripture which confirm the truth of the faith, by twisting them to strange and erroneous senses, as we shall afterwards touch upon in confirming the doctrine of the faith." Briefly to these things I say that either no pious interpretation seems needed, but only great diligence in investigating the true sense of Faustus; or at any rate that there are only two or three texts of Faustus in which a pious interpretation can supply the lack of clarity. What is added about Augustine and sacred Scripture is vague, and by no means proved; it will nevertheless be discussed afterwards, against Noris.

[190] Let Suárez meanwhile go on. "Wherefore," he says, suspicions, "in the earlier passages, which we adduced on the contrary side, the first words of the Epistle, which were approved by the whole council, can have a Catholic sense, and it is to be believed that they were received in that sense by the Fathers of the council subscribing there, as Baronius rightly noted. But in the others, which are Faustus's own" (namely in the books), "under the name of grace he comprehends external preaching, revelation, doctrine, nay even the Law of nature, as we have seen. And so, as often as he says that the beginning of a good will is from grace, or that from God are the beginnings of the commencement and the consummation, and that it is grace which draws and goes before obedience, and the like; he speaks only of external grace through the Law, or doctrine, or preaching; for so he declares himself in other passages, nor in any other sense can the coherence of his doctrine stand. And so Maxentius too noted in the said reply toward the end." Thus Suárez adopts the reasonings of Maxentius against Faustus, although he had earlier made him suspect of heresy, and had acknowledged that St. Hormisdas the Pope was falsely accused by him. But he found no other guide among the ancients whose arguments he could adopt against Faustus. The argument of Maxentius which Suárez adopted has been refuted in its place. What he here adds about the coherence of the doctrine plainly fights against Suárez himself, who attributes such various things to Faustus that I should utterly despair of finding coherence, if the objections of Suárez were to be admitted. But that coherence is easily found in our opinion. For Faustus teaches that sufficient grace is lacking to no one without his own fault, and derives it from the merits of Christ, who died for all. But from that grace he derives man's liberty for working well, and denies a necessity for sinning. These and all the other things of Faustus cohere rightly. But Suárez now makes Faustus a Pelagian, now a Semipelagian, now, abandoning the proper sense of his words, brings forward conjectures, in order to seek his judgment by divination, and even so finds nothing certain, because the first arguments by which he had rightly proved him Catholic he never destroyed by other arguments, but assailed in vain by suspicions and conjectures.

[191] conjectures with a new argument Let us hear the other conjectures too of Suárez as he goes on: "Whence, although in the same books the same words are found which the Catholic faith uses, namely of calling, drawing, assisting, and cooperating grace, nonetheless their signification and use are far different. For by calling he understands only external preaching, or the proposal of an object, or the dictate of the natural law, or something similar, as he himself explains, and this sometimes the first grace and drawing." From the one argument of Maxentius, which may be seen proposed at number 169 and presently refuted, so many conjectures are drawn, which are by no means proved, nor do they seem to me to have any foundation in the books of Faustus. These things would have to be proved, not asserted, just as those too which he subjoins: "But by the help or cooperation of grace he understands some grace subsequent to human merit, and in some way promoting free will to a further perfection. And accordingly in chapter 10 of book 2 he says thus: 'The very word of help indicates two, one working and one cooperating.' Which words are found also in St. Augustine, but in a far different sense. For Augustine wills that grace itself be working and cooperating together with free will, as we shall show below in their places. But Faustus by the one working understands man, and wills the one cooperating to be God or grace, not at the same time, but after man's previous merit. Whence after the said words 'one working and one cooperating' he subjoins: 'one asking and one promising, one knocking and one opening, one seeking and one repaying.' And he neither acknowledges a grace truly working, nor one cooperating toward altogether the same work, or toward the same affection of man: but he calls it cooperating, although it be given only for a new affection, because it is subjoined to the prior action and merit of man, that it may help him to a further perfection. Concerning which also, under the following help, of what kind it is, is never explained by that Author, as I shall say in the following chapter." Thus far Suárez, who by his last words openly declares that the sense of Faustus concerning the help of grace was not sufficiently clear to him, as also in chapter 6 he complains from time to time. I shall nevertheless produce nothing from that chapter, since there he does not assail Faustus with new arguments.

[192] are refuted. But the passage of Faustus which he assails by the words given was recited at number 186, and there I observed at once that Faustus takes his argument from the very name of help to prove that an adult man is not saved by grace alone, but that he too must labor along with grace. Faustus is treating of the manner in which we must obtain heavenly glory, not by grace alone, but by good works to be done through grace. The preceding words clearly indicate this, and those very words which Suárez, or his editor, or perhaps the typesetter, set down corruptly: "The very word of help therefore requires the duty of one who labors: and so the word of help indicates two, one working and one cooperating." From the word "help" he infers that a man must work with God. But I do not grasp how one works and the other cooperates or helps, if it is not a question of the same act, as Suárez would have it. He saw indeed from the following words, "one asking and one promising," and so forth, that something is promised for the future. So it is: but the present help of God is not denied, because to one working well with grace a future help too is promised. If I grasp the sense of Faustus, he wills that we work well and pray with the grace of God, so that we may obtain the future help of grace also, and heavenly glory. This Faustus perpetually inculcates, as I have already said at number 186.

[193] I have answered the objections hurled by Suárez against Faustus, The first arguments against Faustus which are such that several of them would make him a Pelagian rather than a Semipelagian, and therefore they had to be examined so much the more diligently. Nevertheless both Suárez and other moderns have numbered Faustus only among the Semipelagians, not among the Pelagians, and have held that he thought ill concerning the beginning of faith, and attributed it to free will, not to grace. But of this error by name I do not find Faustus accused by anyone older than the sixteenth century. The first accuser, Maxentius, wished to make him a Pelagian. After him no one, so far as I have been able to detect, marked any article by name in the books of Faustus; but some, following Maxentius, called him a favorer of the Pelagians. But more recent writers seem to have attributed that dogma about the beginning of faith to Faustus rather because they numbered him among the Semipelagians, whose error it was, than because they detected it in the books of Faustus. Certainly it is nowhere asserted by Faustus in express words, nor anywhere either, so far as I am able to understand, hinted in obscure sayings. The most learned Suárez shook out the whole books of Faustus most diligently, and directed all his earlier objections to proving that in the books of Faustus some merit of free will is asserted which would precede faith — but in vain, as he himself seems to have seen, before he proceeded to the other assault, concerning an external previous grace alone admitted by Faustus.

[194] For there, after all the objections mentioned, he says: "And so he seems to admit that grace goes before, Suárez seems in some fashion to have deserted. which in chapter 7" (read 17) "he seems to establish in many words." Suárez had at the beginning adduced far more to assert the true opinion concerning previous grace for St. Faustus. These things may be seen at number 140 and following. Suárez therefore seems to have perceived that a man, according to the mind of Faustus, does not arrive at faith without some previous calling of God, although he adduced several objections from Faustus against that truth. For when he began to contend that Faustus is speaking of a calling through external preaching, he speaks thus after the words just given: "Nevertheless there (chapter 17) he opens his meaning and takes away all ambiguity, and by the name of grace

knocking or drawing he understands only external preaching and doctrine, or the proposal of an object." And after reciting some things from Faustus, he says: "Where he sets up this order between grace and free will, that some calling go before through external preaching," and so forth. These things seem to prove that Suárez drew back from his first objection, in which he contended that "(Faustus) attributes the beginning of faith or of salvation to free will," or "places it in the desire for good," as he afterwards puts it. Yet again, after a few words, he doubts whether Faustus does not set down a twofold drawing. By so great a variety of assailing and of divining about the meaning of Faustus, Suárez seems to make it manifest that judgment must be passed on the doctrine of Faustus according to his words understood in their proper sense; from which by Suárez himself it was proved and declared Catholic and distinct from the Pelagian and Semipelagian errors — and rightly so, as I judge from Suárez's own arguments and from others.

[195] Let me therefore be allowed to bring forward a few things to confirm this. First, the Epistle of Faustus to Lucidus, The things which Faustus took up to be proved in his Work are Catholic: prefixed to the Work, is held by Baronius and Suárez and by all Catholics everywhere as sound and Catholic, and as approved by a council. If anyone now shall diligently compare the Work of Faustus with that Epistle, he will altogether detect, I think, that Faustus labored solely to prove and elucidate the doctrine of that Epistle, and to refute the objections of his adversaries. There were added, however, by Faustus toward the end of the Work those things which the Fathers of Lyons wished to be added for refuting the errors afterwards detected. From the Epistle of Lucidus, retracting his errors, we have this proposition: "I assert also that, by the reason and order of the ages, some were saved by the law of grace, others by the law of Moses, others by the law of nature, which God wrote in the hearts of all, in hope of the coming of Christ: yet that from the beginning of the world they were not absolved from the original bond except by the intercession of the sacred Blood." To confirm this article Faustus wrote the last part of his Work, but he treated chiefly of the Saints of the law of nature, because, as I judge, it would be less denied of the others. Now indeed, if all the things which Faustus was zealous to prove and confirm are sound and Catholic, we have from that very fact a favorable presumption for his doctrine. Besides, wherever the words of Faustus are ambiguous, we must look back to the things which he had taken up either to refute or to prove, and thus we shall the more easily find the true sense of his words: nor shall we only understand the true sense, but shall also detect a sound one.

[196] [he proved the necessity of working well with the grace of God, that we may be saved,] Secondly, Faustus in his Epistle speaks thus: "We therefore, walking in the middle with Christ as our leader, assert after grace — without which we are nothing — the labor of a dutiful service; but we in every way exclude arrogance and presumption of labor, so that, while we sweat with all our strength lest grace be made void in us, we may declare that whatever we have received from the hand of the Lord is a gift and not a price, knowing that the fruit of that labor is a matter of duty, not of merit, saying with the Evangelist: 'We are unprofitable servants; what we ought to do, we have done.'" See at number 178 the objection of Suárez about the fruit of labor, and there and at number 179 words of Faustus plainly similar, recited and expounded. What I am urging here is that the labor of a dutiful service is required by Faustus, but after grace. And so he does not require labor in order that we may merit by it the first grace or faith, but that through grace we may serve God, preserve and increase grace, and obtain glory. The necessity of working well unto the end just stated Faustus proves throughout the whole Work, and this was his purpose, and was enjoined upon him by the council, as is clear from the first proposition which Lucidus retracted in these words: "Accordingly, according to the recent statutes of the council which are to be proclaimed, I condemn with you that opinion which says that the labor of human obedience is not to be joined to divine grace." But nowhere was it enjoined upon Faustus to set out how faith or the first grace is acquired. Wherefore they have strayed a whole heaven's breadth from his purpose who have held that he required either good works, or a good affection, or a desire for good, or something similar, in order that a man may merit the gift of faith.

[197] but not of working well without grace, that we may merit faith; Thirdly, that opinion is plainly contrary to many assertions of Faustus. In the words just given he said, "after grace, without which we are nothing." Presently, in book 1, chapter 1, he sets down as a foundation against Pelagius those words of Christ, "Because without me you can do nothing," and those of the Psalmist, "Unless the Lord build the house, they have labored in vain who build it." If in the order to our salvation we are nothing without grace, if we can do nothing without grace, in the judgment of Faustus; how, in the judgment of the same man, can we have a good affection without grace, by which we may merit faith? Nor let anyone here say that only the beginning of faith is attributed to us by him. For that beginning would at least be something which contributed to our salvation. But Faustus attributes nothing to us; nor can he at the same time attribute something and nothing to us, except by openly contradicting himself. Besides, in book 1, chapter XI, he openly denies that beginning to us in these words: "But he who presumes to arrogate to himself either the beginning of the work or the end, to him it is deservedly said: 'Unless the Lord build the house,'" and so forth.

[198] I pass over other things already said in various places, and add the words of Faustus in book 2, chapter 8, given also by Suárez: for this is plainly contrary to his assertions. "Nothing here, as I think, smacks of presumption, since I also assert this very thing unceasingly, that I owe to God my very will, especially since in all its motions I refer to the work of grace both the beginnings of the commencement and the last stages of the consummation." He professes that we owe a good will to God, and that all the good motions of the will are the work of grace, both the beginnings of the motions and the end or perfection. It is not permissible here to have recourse to preaching or to other external graces, since a good motion of the will is an internal grace. And so, if Faustus referred all the motions of a good will to the work of grace, as he professes, how could he refer any motions of it to the natural powers of free will? If he referred the beginnings of the commencement to the work of grace, by what reasoning at last is he believed to have referred the beginning of faith to a previous affection of a natural good will? Wherefore that is gratuitously attributed to Faustus which he nowhere said; that is gratuitously drawn by reasonings from his obscure words which so manifestly conflicts with his clear and open assertions.

[199] But since I see that by another writer there were objected against Faustus the words which precede the last passage alleged from chapter 8, From this passage of Faustus here recited I bring over here the whole context, although it is lengthy. "Nor indeed in this," he says, "shall I seem incautious, if I profess that sometimes in our dispositions — not indeed in the first beginnings of our life, but only in the middle stages — our will, God so ordaining, goes before special graces coming from an additional bounty. Whether it be so, let us ask the sacred oracles. We read in the Gospel the Lord saying: 'What wilt thou that I do to thee?' And again: 'Wilt thou be made whole?' You see that the gift of health is not bestowed unless the desire of the will be first asked. But also, when one comes to baptism, the will of him who approaches is first inquired into, so that the grace of Him who regenerates may follow. And in the centurion Cornelius, because the will went before grace, therefore grace also came before regeneration." These last words about Cornelius Noris objected, who is to be refuted below, on account of those words, I think: "because the will went before grace." But Faustus presently explains of what will he is speaking, namely of a will moved or stirred by grace. But what grace of Cornelius he designates by those words, "because the will went before grace," we understand from Acts 10, where the history of Cornelius is related — namely the grace of the Holy Spirit received before baptism. The matter is narrated thus from verse 44: "While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who had come with Peter, were astonished, because the grace of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the nations also. For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized," and so forth. This plainly singular grace was preceded by the will of Cornelius, excellently prepared by graces: for Cornelius at verses 1 and 2 is called "religious and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God." And so both by faith in God and by many graces he was rightly disposed for that singular grace which he received before baptism.

[200] Now let us observe a few things from the alleged passage of Faustus. If what is imputed to Faustus were true, a good will, the same thing is again proved. and that from the powers of nature alone, would always have to precede grace: but he speaks of a will prepared by grace, asserts that this happens sometimes, and that it happens with God so ordaining. First therefore he did not believe that a good will always precedes grace, nor did he think that a merely natural will precedes grace. Besides, he says that a good will sometimes precedes "special graces coming from an additional bounty." Wherefore he did not judge that a good will precedes the grace of faith or any first grace whatever: nay, he could not judge this at all of a natural will, since he attributes every beginning of a good will tending to salvation to grace. But not only this reason; but also so many conditions, limitations, and cautions which Faustus employed, so as to say timidly that the will "sometimes" precedes special graces, manifestly indicate that Faustus did not believe that a good affection of the will precedes any graces whatever by which we are stirred by God to faith or to good works; especially since he frequently says that these are pressed upon men by God, and contends in various places that they are lacking to no adult without his own fault.

[201] By various arguments Now indeed I shall briefly show how improbable it is that Faustus designates only external graces when he speaks of the graces calling to faith. He refers to the work of grace, in all the motions of the will, both the beginnings of the commencement and the last stages of the consummation. But the good affection by which a man desires to embrace faith is one of the good motions of the will. Therefore that affection is attributed by Faustus to grace, not to the powers of nature. Now that affection cannot be called an external grace, since it is in the will of the man. Therefore he did not establish the calling of a man to faith as an external grace, but as truly internal, and as given to men on account of the merits of Christ, as he often says. And indeed I do not understand by what reasoning a good motion of the will could be called an external grace, since nothing is more internal to a man than the will. Secondly, Faustus, by the words alleged at number 183,

sets down as a certain principle the words of the Apostle: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Wherefore he could not consequently say that before faith a man can so please God by a natural affection as to merit faith, even after an external calling, since this does not increase the powers of the will. Thirdly, equally as a general principle against Pelagius he alleges those words of Christ: "Without me you can do nothing" — namely for earning salvation. To this again he would be contradicting, if he should say that anyone can arrive at faith with an external calling alone going before, as not increasing the natural powers.

[202] it is shown that Faustus Fourthly, in book 1, chapter 1, he expounds the words of Christ concerning His death for men by this paraphrase: "If justice had abounded on earth, the medicine would not have been sent from heaven: but that the one health might come, a general infirmity demanded it." If he believed that Christ had come to heal a general infirmity by His death, he consequently believed that the graces which He merited for us are internal: for these alone give strength to infirm men. Now indeed there is no reason why we should say that assisting grace is indeed acknowledged as internal by Faustus, but not preventing grace. Nay, it is certain that he is speaking of preventing grace when he says that it is given or offered to all, and infers from that same grace that all can arrive at faith and salvation. Fifthly, the Predestinarians, against whom he was arguing, were certainly speaking of internal grace. Of the same, therefore, Faustus too was speaking, who in book 1, chapter 4, thus attacks them: "When they shall have said, 'It is all of the grace of God,' who would not be bowed with every affection of the heart at a name so worthy of reverence? But when we have answered, 'It is all plainly of grace, but the Creator and Redeemer offers and presses it upon all, for the salvation of all': to these things they, departing far from the path of piety, presume to answer: 'The Savior did not give it to all, because neither did He die for all.' Behold, at once in the second place he appears an assailant of grace who in the first was thought its asserter." He is called an assailant of internal grace just as truly as an asserter.

[203] Sixthly, in chapter 13, upon these words of the Apostle, Hebrews 10:29, understood by preventing grace "shall have done insult to the Spirit of grace" — which certainly signify both internal grace and the Holy Spirit, the giver of grace — he argues thus: "Recognize in this place that grace was not so much lacking to the man as denied him; rather the kindness of the Giver deserted the man, having first been abandoned and despised by him. With a certain grief He rebukes the insult of the one who rejects; and thus, when he voluntarily turned aside to devious ways, he did not perish as one abandoned, who ungratefully withdrew himself from the mercy that pressed itself upon him." To wish to expound all these things of external graces is to do violence to the words. A little before, upon these words, "Love not the world," he had said: "Unless He had conferred upon him a good affection toward better things, He would not have forbidden him the appetite for evil; and therefore he is drawn to the left by his own crime who is called to the right by his Lord." In what way is he "called to the right by his Lord"? Perhaps only through external preaching or other like means? No, says Faustus, but through "a good affection toward better things," that is, through internal grace, which God conferred upon him.

[204] That without this a man cannot abstain from evil he again indicates by these words: an internal grace, "He would not have forbidden him the appetite for evil" — namely because God does not command impossible things, as he presently confirms, going on thus: "And therefore He says again: 'Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.' Plainly he is not pressed by a necessity of evil to whom victory is promised from the choice of good. For a law of origin does not draw into devious ways one whom the Author placed at a crossroads; and thus, one in whom a will has been implanted, that he may be able to overcome evil," and so forth. The grace which above is a "good affection toward better things," which here is called "a will implanted," and presently "a mercy pressing itself upon him," cannot be conceived except as internal. If Suárez had considered all these things a little more attentively, together with the rest which I answered to the objection about an external drawing or calling to faith alone, at number 169 and following, he would perhaps never have adopted the objection of Maxentius, and would have refuted it far more easily than all those things can be refuted which openly show that Faustus constantly understood by preventing grace an internal grace offered to all, and supplying the powers for acting well. I could add more arguments to these, but I fear that I have already become more lengthy than is right. Wherefore I shall only observe briefly whence it seems to have come about that the doctrine of St. Faustus seemed to many different from the doctrine of St. Augustine.

[205] St. Augustine, in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 20, says: The doctrine of St. Faustus seems consonant with Augustine, "For we have learned that each several heresy has brought its own questions into the Church, against which divine Scripture would be defended more diligently than if no such necessity compelled it." But the holy doctor observes these things because certain learned men, and the Semipelagians by name, complained that he had disputed many new things, unknown to the more ancient Fathers. If Faustus for the same cause had disputed some things against a new heresy which had earlier been less laboriously examined, he would have done the same as St. Augustine. I do not know, however, whether we can rightly attribute this praise to St. Faustus. For I judge that all those things which Faustus chiefly took up to be proved — concerning free will, concerning the necessity of good works, concerning sufficient grace given or offered to all out of the merits of Christ — are easily to be found in the more ancient writers, and in St. Augustine himself, perhaps less lengthily disputed, yet clearly asserted and sufficiently proved. If anyone shall be willing attentively to search through the books of St. Augustine On Free Will, and especially book 3, chapters 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, where he shows that a man does not lack free power of acting well, because he does not lack sufficient grace, he will detect that St. Faustus is a disciple of St. Augustine in these matters.

[206] [although on account of the diversity of subject matter it has seemed different to some.] Nor did St. Augustine afterwards retract what he wrote there, but defended it in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 9, where he admonishes the Pelagians in these words: "Wherefore let not the new Pelagian heretics, who so assert the free choice of the will that they leave no place for the grace of God, since indeed they assert that it is given according to our merits — let them not exalt themselves as though I had pleaded their cause, because I said many things in these books for free will which the cause of that disputation demanded." Then he reviews many things said about free will, from which Pelagius had snatched one, and he subjoins: "In these and like words of mine, because the grace of God is not mentioned, of which the question was not then being treated, the Pelagians think, or can think, that we held their opinion. But they think this in vain. For it is the will by which one both sins and lives rightly: which we were treating of in these words." These very things one will be able to think about Faustus, if anyone should believe that he did not speak often enough about grace. For Faustus had to defend free will, as Augustine had in that place. Of grace, however, he spoke much more frequently, and everywhere declared its necessity in clearer words than St. Augustine did in the said books. On the other hand, St. Augustine in his Works against the Pelagians discussed far more concerning grace than Faustus did in his own, and fewer things for free will. Hence it comes about that many who read the books of St. Augustine against the Pelagians before the rest judge the doctrine of Faustus less consonant with the Augustinian: nor do they sufficiently weigh how opposed are the heresies — the Pelagian, against which St. Augustine wrote, and the Predestinarian, which St. Faustus had to refute.

. Otherwise, qui sic audiat*.

. In Suárez, infirmitatem*.

. Otherwise, quolibet*.

§ XI. An answer is made to the objections of Noris, who would have Faustus condemned in the council of Orange, and contrary to St. Augustine.

[ ] [Noris took ill, without just cause, the Apology of Sirmond for Faustus, such as it was,] Noris in the Pelagian History acknowledges the cult and the sanctity of St. Faustus, yet would have it that he was a Semipelagian, and that his books were condemned in the second council of Orange. The contrary I have already proved at numbers 137 and 138, and I shall presently refute his objections. Meanwhile I observe that the most learned Sirmond, who had well perceived the acts of the council of Orange, was not of that opinion, and that not even Suárez made mention of a condemnation of Faustus in that council. Hence Sirmond, in the Predestinarian History, chapter 8, speaks thus for Faustus: "The zeal for truth and the love of innocence admonish in this place that we should grieve for the lot of Faustus of Riez, and beg for a holy Prelate of famous name the reverence which is right. For who would not take it ill that that Faustus — who was held by all in admiration in his own age and in honor; whom Sidonius called a Man of saving and singular doctrine, whom Ruricius called an outstanding teacher, an excellent Pastor; whom, while still an abbot, Hilary of Arles so honored that he placed him in the middle between himself and the bishops Theodore and Maximus; whom as Bishop all his episcopal colleagues revered, and whom Hilarus the Pontiff judged worthy to preside together with himself in a Roman synod — this Faustus, I say, who would bear with an even mind that he is everywhere harassed by many on account of these books now, because at the judgment of a synod he refuted in them the errors of the Predestinarians, and traduced as a heretic; and that, as they cannot dissemble, on the authority and under the leadership of John Maxentius, a Scythian monk, one of the number of those who, secretly fostering the heresy of Eutyches, assailed the synod of Chalcedon by hidden arts against Hormisdas and his legates?"

[208] He adds that the African bishops were stirred up against Faustus by Maxentius and his colleagues, and appealed in vain to the theologians. as was related in §8, but that neither were defenders then lacking to Faustus. But of his own age he speaks thus below: "Nay, in this age of ours too there are not lacking, and in the century immediately before there were not lacking, most learned men of exact judgment who would go over to their opinion, and among these, that I may not mention more, two most famous lights of the university of Louvain, Johannes Driedo and Ruard Tapper, who both name Faustus, and not without honor, a Catholic Doctor of the Church." I pass over the rest, which may be seen in Sirmond. Noris, in the Appendix to the Pelagian History, chapter 3, took the said Apology of Sirmond for Faustus with an aggrieved mind, and tried sharply to refute it. But first I do not see for what cause Noris took it so ill that Faustus of Riez, whom he himself in various places confesses a Saint, was defended by Sirmond with a moderate Apology, especially since he himself in the Pelagian History, book 2, chapter 20, was zealous to free John Maxentius and the monks from the mark of heresy. Did he perhaps believe that it was not lawful for Sirmond on behalf of a holy Prelate to do what he did not judge unlawful for himself on behalf of men whom he was compelled of his own accord to admit had been turbulent and calumniators?

[209] He praises against Faustus, on behalf of Maxentius, Bellarmine, Baronius, Suárez, and Vázquez, and admonishes Sirmond that in theological matters he himself

as a supreme historian should rise up before most learned theologians. But if he believed that he rightly gave this admonition, why did he himself, against the authority of the said theologians, defend Maxentius, who was suspect to all of them of the Eutychian heresy? Did he perhaps believe Sirmond so unskilled in theological matters that he did not know what was Pelagian or Semipelagian, and what on the contrary was Catholic? Let me here candidly speak out what I think. The authority of Sirmond in these matters is greater with me than that of any of those moderns whom Noris produced against him: both because he perceived that many authorities of the ancients were wrongly produced against Faustus, which those men had followed in error; and because in the knowledge of the ancient heresies, and in rightly understanding the writings of the ancients, he in no way yielded to them; and because he showed that he knew the whole history of Faustus — in which Baronius greatly strayed, and whom others have almost all followed — that is, the occasion on which he wrote, the errors which he refuted, the persons by whom he was assailed, and all the other circumstances of times, places, and persons, far more perfectly than the theologians whom Noris praises knew it. Sirmond therefore had every aid for rightly understanding the books of Faustus, and had more than the praised theologians, whose historical errors he avoided. In vain therefore is he sent to the theologians, since it is only a question of the right understanding of the books of Faustus, and since he has alleged distinguished theologians for Faustus, and could have alleged more.

[210] The asserted condemnation of the books of Faustus in the council of Orange The remaining objections of Noris against Faustus I have already refuted in their places, as also certain arguments adopted by him from Suárez. There remain to be examined the things which he brought forward to prove that the doctrine of Faustus was condemned in the council of Orange, and that Faustus wrote against St. Augustine. This disputation of Noris becomes from time to time more bitter, and therefore this answer of mine may seem to some sharper than that by which I tried to refute Suárez, unless they will observe that the whole difference arises from the objections to which I am replying. I have already observed at number 137 that Noris asserts that the books of Faustus were condemned in the council of Orange; but that no foundation is had for that opinion from the Acts of the council, since in them there is deep silence about Faustus, and the living are treated of, as may be seen in the same place. Besides, of a condemnation of the books of Faustus in the council of Orange no writer ever, whether contemporary, or nearly contemporary, or of the middle age, made mention, so that it is plainly a new invention. And yet the author of the Life of St. Fulgentius, who was of an unfair mind toward Faustus, would by no means seem to have been about to pass over that condemnation, had he known of it, nor would absolutely all the writers of that and of a later time have wrapped in silence a thing so memorable.

[211] lacks every ancient testimony, and every likelihood. Wherefore that condemnation of the books of Faustus in the council seems no less invented than their refutation by St. Caesarius, who presided over the said council. On the contrary, St. Caesarius, who was educated in the same monastery of Lérins in which Faustus had drunk in sacred doctrine, seems to have made very much of St. Faustus. Let the studious reader consult what has been said on this matter at numbers 8 and 9, and he will see that the authority of St. Faustus was brought forward by St. Caesarius in a most grave matter, and was brought forward together with the canons of the councils against Contumeliosus the bishop, and that this was done by Caesarius a few years after the council of Orange: and that on that occasion the title of Saint, or of holy Bishop, was given by Caesarius to Faustus. Now indeed I by no means understand why St. Caesarius should have shown so great honor to Faustus as to join his authority to a decree of St. Siricius the Pope and to the canons, if he had before condemned his doctrine in a council. Certainly the things which had earlier been produced could have sufficed for condemning Contumeliosus: why then should he add to that end a Man of condemned doctrine, against whom the accused could have taken exception? These things certainly I cannot square with a condemnation of the books in the council, or with their refutation by St. Caesarius. He too, as far as it seems to me, would not have brought forth concerning the island of Lérins the things given at number 28, if it had been a seminary of Semipelagians, and had rendered Faustus the chief of the Semipelagians, as certain more recent writers have boasted.

[212] Several canons of Orange against the Predestinarians And so no proof is had for the said condemnation, unless it can be shown that the canons of the council of Orange are contrary to the doctrine of Faustus; as they certainly are contrary to the Semipelagian errors, which were there condemned. But I find many things in the canons of the council of Orange which are altogether consonant with the doctrine of Faustus, nothing which seems contrary to it. Certainly all the things which in the last canon are defined against the Predestinarians seem taken from what was proved by Faustus. Such is this: "This also we believe according to the Catholic faith, that all the baptized, having received grace through baptism, with Christ helping and cooperating, can and ought to fulfill the things which pertain to the salvation of the soul, if they shall be willing to labor faithfully." This indeed he will find in Augustine who shall be willing studiously to investigate. I think, however, that the canon was composed rather from Faustus, because it was one of the articles which he received to be proved at the command of the council of Arles. I do not sufficiently grasp by what reasoning Noris, in book 2, chapter 23, says of this canon: "Rejecting the impostures of Faustus, they decree that the grace of God is granted to all in baptism, and that all, with God helping, can, if they shall be willing to labor faithfully, fulfill the divine commandments." I do not see, I say, by what reasoning the council is said to have framed a canon conformable to the doctrine of Faustus in order to reject his impostures; nor did Noris consider, I think, how ill impostures square with the sanctity which he himself attributes to Faustus.

[213] The Fathers of Orange subjoin: "But that some have been predestined to evil by the divine power, seem composed out of things proved by Faustus. we not only do not believe; but even, if there are any who wish to believe so great an evil, we pronounce anathema upon them with all detestation." That was one of the errors which Faustus had chiefly undertaken to refute. But again Noris undeservedly carps at Faustus here, when he asserts that this was enacted by the Fathers "because he had declared, along with his followers, that the defenders of the Augustinian opinion concerning predestination teach that God predestines a man equally to good and to evil." Faustus attributes this to the Predestinarian heretics, not to the defenders of the Augustinian opinion. How honorably Faustus always spoke of St. Augustine we shall see below. But first let us examine the things which Noris objected from the council as contrary to Faustus.

[214] He briefly reviews the canons of the council thus: "The beginning of faith, The remaining canons and even the very affection of belief, is decreed to be the gift of God, canon V." We judge that this is the very doctrine of Faustus. "That grace is not given to those who ask" (add, from the canon itself, "without the grace of God"), "who seek, who knock; but rather that we may will, and ask, and seek, and knock, canon VI." This very thing Faustus perpetually contends, that grace is given us by God so that we may work well and press on with prayers. "That the help of God must always be implored even by the Saints, by which they may be able to persevere in good work, canon X; whence perseverance is understood to be the gift of God." Again this is the very doctrine of Faustus, and often repeated. "All things," says Noris, "are comprehended in this canon XX: 'God does many good things in man which man does not do: but man does none which God does not cause man to do.' By which words he declared that the whole is to be given to divine grace, that is, both the beginning and the progress and the perseverance; whereas the Semipelagians refused to concede the beginning and the perseverance in good work to divine grace." These things are true of the Semipelagians, but by no means contrary to Faustus, who said all those things likewise, as has been sufficiently proved before.

[215] There remain two objections of Noris from the last canon, have nothing which may seem contrary to Faustus. which he divided into five. I shall give the very words of the council which he assigned: "Whence we believe that to Abel the just, and to Noah, and to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, and to the whole multitude of the ancient fathers, that illustrious faith which the apostle Paul proclaims in their praise was conferred, not through the good of nature, which had first been given in Adam, but through the grace of God." If we believe Noris, Faustus had taught the opposite in book 2, chapters 6 and 7. But, if I may prefer to believe my own eyes, the praised Faustus taught the same things as the council. For he both calls the faith of Abel the Lord's gift, and presently observes that "the good of belief" (that is, faith) "is no new privilege, but an ancient one." And, to pass over other things, of the virtues generally he observes in chapter 7 that "(man) does not have these things naturally." But if a man does not have the virtues naturally, as Faustus says, he received neither faith nor the other virtues from God "through the good of nature,… but through grace," as the Fathers observe. Of the faith given to Enoch I have spoken before, and of several other things pertaining to this.

[216] The last words objected from the council have: "That in every good work we do not begin and are afterwards helped, but that God prevents us by grace. Whence it is most manifestly to be believed that… the so admirable faith of Cornelius the centurion, to whom an angel of the Lord was sent,… was not of nature, but the gift of the divine bounty." Contrary to these Noris would have the things which Faustus has about Cornelius in book 2, chapter 8. But in my judgment that passage, which I weighed at number 198, clearly shows that the doctrine of Faustus concerning preventing grace is sound. For as something singular he observes that certain special graces are sometimes given to men rightly disposed by a good will, as the grace of the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius. But, lest anyone might think that he was speaking of a disposition by a natural will, by way of precaution he presently adds: "Since I also assert this very thing unceasingly, that I owe to God my very will, especially since in all its motions I refer to the work of grace both the beginnings of the commencement and the last stages of the consummation." I have weighed all the objections of Noris, which certainly have small or no force for disapproving the doctrine of Faustus from the council of Orange.

[217] From the diversity of the questions it seems to come about that Faustus The praised Noris, in book 2, chapter 15, gravely accuses Faustus, as though he had been in the highest degree contrary to St. Augustine, and had studiously assailed his doctrine: but he certainly asserts many things which are neither proved nor ever will be able to be proved. Before I bring over here his words, which I shall examine, I judge that some things must be observed in general for the benefit of the studious reader. I have already observed at numbers 205 and 206 whence it could have happened that modern writers judged the doctrine of Faustus less consonant with St. Augustine — namely because, where grace is treated of, they chiefly read the writings of St. Augustine against the Pelagians, in which grace and its efficacy, and predestination, had to be defended; not free will, which the Pelagians and Semipelagians admitted with so great an excess that they slipped into error. But Faustus did not have to defend the efficacy of grace nor predestination, since both were acknowledged

by the Predestinarians, along with their attendant errors: but free will, the necessity of good works, the death of Christ for all, and thence sufficient grace offered to all, by which a man can work well. If anyone amid so great a diversity of questions should look for the same manners of speaking everywhere, he assuredly does not know, or at any rate does not consider, how far writers are wont to accommodate their words to the questions which they have in hand.

[218] sometimes speaks otherwise than Augustine against the Pelagians: St. Augustine, in book 12 of the City of God, chapter 6, sets down two men equally affected in mind and body, and both assailed by the same temptation against chastity, of whom one keeps his chastity unstained, while the other is overcome and falls: then he seeks the cause of this diversity, and answers: "What else appears, save that the one willed and the other was unwilling to fall away from chastity?" And so in the case alleged the Augustinian answer is: the one willed, the other was unwilling to fall away from chastity: and that answer is certainly fitting for those who defend free will; or who ask whence an evil will arises, as Augustine there asks. But, so far as I have been able to grasp the doctrine of St. Augustine, to the same case in the matter of predestination he would have answered: God predestined the one to the gift of chastity, not the other. If it were a question of the efficacy of grace: God gave chastity to the one, not to the other. If of reconciling grace with free will: God so called the one to chastity as was fitted for him to follow, the other He did not so call. All these expressions are conformable to St. Augustine, as those are not ignorant who are well versed in his Works. Which then will a prudent follower of St. Augustine adopt? Namely, out of them all, that which is more accommodated to the matter which he is handling, as St. Faustus did, and just as Augustine himself always spoke according to the nature of the questions which he had in hand.

[219] Let us now hear Noris. When he had related that the task of writing against the Predestinarians was entrusted to Faustus by the council of Lyons, nor yet is he to be accused of bad faith, or gravely he goes on thus: "But Faustus, having executed the task entrusted to him in bad faith and with a mind prejudiced against the opinion of Augustine, deviated from the more correct dogma. For under the pretext of confuting the Predestinarian heresy he set about writing two books On Grace and Free Will, in which Augustine was beaten under another's hide." Here let us pause a little. I could wish that Noris had been less vehement against a Man whom he acknowledges to have been raised to the stars by St. Sidonius above the other prelates of that age, whom he admits to have been in the highest esteem among all the bishops of Gaul, whom he himself testifies to be a Saint and honored with the cult of the Saints. For he ought not to have objected either bad faith or impostures to a holy Man, unless he had suitable arguments for proving reproaches so grave. But these he never brought forward, never could bring forward. For if Faustus really had disagreed with Augustine in some things, as it is established that Jerome disagreed in some things, he would not yet be to be accused of bad faith: for it was not the defense of Augustine but of the Catholic faith that was entrusted to Faustus.

[220] Augustine himself did not speak thus of those whom he knew to disagree with him in several opinions, to be reproved, if in several questions as he frequently declares in his Works, and by name in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 21, he speaks thus: "Although I would have no one so embrace all my writings as to follow me, except in those things in which he shall have perceived that I have not erred. For it is for this reason that I am now making books in which I have undertaken to review my little Works, so that I may show that I myself have not followed myself in all things: but I judge that by God's mercy I have written with progress, yet not that I began from perfection; since indeed I speak more arrogantly than truly if even now I say that at this age I have already arrived at perfection in writing without any error." These things he ought to imitate who prudently desires to follow St. Augustine. Augustine admits that he himself did not always follow his own writings, but from time to time found some things more probable than what he had given before.

[221] Who then would deservedly reprove Faustus, if from time to time he had preferred to interpret some text of sacred Scripture with Jerome, never decided, he had preferred to speak with other Fathers. with Chrysostom, with Hilary, or with some other ancient Father, rather than with St. Augustine, because he believed their interpretation either more probable or more apt to his purpose? No interpreter of sacred Scripture, I think, has believed that this was to be turned to his fault. No more would St. Faustus have been to be reproved if, concerning several incidental questions, and by name concerning souls, that each is created by God and infused into bodies, he had preferred to follow Jerome and other doctors speaking without doubt, rather than whatever hesitation of Augustine there was on that matter, adopted by St. Fulgentius and other Africans. If anyone perhaps should also believe that the texts of sacred Scripture which treat of the death of Christ for all, of the serious will of God to save all, of sufficient grace offered to all, were received by Faustus in a more uniform and constant exposition along with the more ancient doctors of the Church, and with the present-day doctrine too of the Catholic Church, not even this would I believe should be numbered among the faults of Faustus. Nevertheless it is certain and beyond doubt to me that the judgment of St. Augustine and of St. Faustus concerning these matters was the same, even though St. Augustine did not everywhere express it in words equally express. These things I wished to observe briefly, not because I find the doctrine of Faustus to disagree with the Augustinian in any dogma, but because it would be long to examine whether Faustus spoke with Augustine in all incidental matters as well.

[222] But Noris by no means proves that St. Augustine But I do not hesitate to say that Faustus was neither prejudiced in mind against the doctrine of Augustine, nor was Augustine beaten in his books. Empty are the words which Noris subjoins to prove this, going on thus: "For he assails his opinion concerning gratuitous predestination with all his might, restores the dogmas of the Massilians long since overthrown by the holy doctor, and again lays upon him the blasphemies which Prosper had removed far from the prelate of Hippo: in a word, he is wholly anti-Augustinian." What shall I say to these things, save that I am struck with astonishment to read such things in Noris? I have both turned over the books of Faustus frequently, and compared the books of St. Augustine On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance with them, and I have been unable to find a single word in these Works of St. Augustine, which alone were written against the Massilians, which seems to be refuted by Faustus, or contrary to him. Faustus wrote against heretics, not for the dogmas of the Massilians, but for the Catholic faith: he never assailed Augustine, but called him to his aid not without praise. Let us therefore hear the proofs: "Certainly he shakes out all the testimonies of the sacred Book praised by the holy doctor, and his interpretations, as John Maxentius shows in his reply to the Epistle of Hormisdas." Maxentius, whom he himself confessed an impostor, and consequently unworthy of credence unless he proved his sayings, Noris alleges as a witness. I unrolled to this end the brief writing of Maxentius, and did not find one testimony concerning which he attempted to prove that which he is asserted to have shown concerning them all.

[223] was ever refuted by Faustus in a single word: Let us hear whether Noris is more fortunate in proving than in asserting. "Let us inspect," he says, "one and indeed a brief chapter of the first book, namely the fourth: in it I judge that Faustus fights diametrically against Augustine, and that not even those more recent writers who lately strove to produce laborious apologies for Faustus would have denied it, if they had considered the matter apart from party zeal." Great things are promised by this exordium. I could wish therefore that the reader would attend diligently to the proof. "For there," he says, "when he had assailed at length the opinion of St. Augustine concerning predestination, he concludes: 'If therefore the one has been appointed to life, the other to perdition, as they assert; as a certain one of the Saints said, we are born not to be judged, but already judged.'" From these words badly understood — as though a certain one of the Saints were being refuted, and not rather his saying alleged against the Predestinarians, of whom he says "as they assert" — Noris thus concludes: "We have the defendant confessing, for he who through that whole chapter had fought against gratuitous predestination professes not obscurely that he stands against Augustine. For who was that one of the Saints who taught that opinion, save Augustine, who both handed it down most subtly and defended it most strongly in six hundred places?" These are words, and nothing but words brought forth from error. Faustus in that chapter does not assail the true opinion of St. Augustine concerning predestination, but the false one of the Predestinarians. These would have it that, without any regard to good or evil merits, the one was predestined to life, the other to damnation: and they took away free will and the necessity of good works. From this impious opinion St. Augustine shrank in the highest degree. Nor did Faustus indicate Augustine by those words, "as a certain one of the Saints said," but another unknown to us, whose authority, such as it is, he alleges for the true opinion against the Predestinarians, indicated by the words "as they assert." To these he attributes the false opinion which he assails, and to a certain one of the Saints its refutation by the words alleged, that, if that opinion stands, "we are born not to be judged, but already judged." And so, if that certain one of the Saints were St. Augustine, Faustus would be using his authority against his adversaries. Wherefore we do not have Faustus confessing that he fights against Augustine; but we have Noris clearly straying from the mind of Faustus.

[224] In vain too does Noris allege the words of Faustus from the Epistle to Graecus, Faustus spoke of St. Augustine not ill, but honorably. or rather Gratus. The words are these: "In the writings of the holy pontiff Augustine, even if anything is thought suspect among most learned men, of those things which you judged were to be condemned you may know that nothing has been reproved." He is answering Gratus, who wished rashly to disapprove some things in the Writings of St. Augustine, as is clear from the alleged words, "of those things which you judged were to be condemned you may know that nothing has been reproved." Faustus therefore defends Augustine against the rash judgment of Gratus. But the words interposed seem added only because Gratus, to defend his own rashness, had written that some things in the writings of St. Augustine were suspect to most learned men. This Faustus could not wholly deny, since it was true and certain from the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary. And so he conceded it indeed, but most gently, in these words: "even if anything is thought suspect among most learned men." But Faustus does not say that anything in the books of St. Augustine was suspect to himself also. But how much he made of St. Augustine he sufficiently shows by alleging his authority above all in the books On Grace and Free Will, in which I do not find other Fathers alleged. He alleged Augustine in book 1, chapter 6. Again in book 2, chapter 7, he praises him in these words: "That the work of the natural law was written in the hearts of men, the most blessed pontiff Augustine also sets forth in a most learned discourse." Noris adds certain words of Faustus by which, he says, he teaches that faith is born from the powers of free will.

But the words only signify that faith was given by God to the just under the law of nature as well, and that others were not without it save by their own fault. If he objected any other things, they have been solved in §§9 and 10.

§ XII. The assertions of Tillemont, arguing against the sanctity of Faustus, are refuted.

[ ] The arguments of Tillemont, It remains that we should briefly answer Tillemont, who under Faustus, article 10, inquires whether he ought to be held a Saint, and objects several things to the contrary. The first is this, from the Chronology of Lérins, page 53: "Then there is at hand, fighting against Faustus as severely as truly, in the Library of Marguerin de la Bigne, the censure of the sacred master of the Apostolic palace, where he expressly enjoins and commands that, wherever the name of Saint or Divus is found prefixed to Faustus, bishop of Riez, it be wholly expunged and blotted out, because he was utterly unworthy of it." But if the master of the sacred palace gave such a command when Marguerin de la Bigne was printing his Library in the sixteenth century, he in all likelihood did so because Baronius, in volume 6 of the Annals, at the year 490, believed Faustus unworthy of the title of Saint. But when afterwards, in volume 10, he acknowledged the sanctity of Faustus, and said, "Nor let it be lawful for novelty by private judgment to tear up antiquity," either the same or another master of the sacred palace in all likelihood also changed his own opinion. Certainly in the Lyons Library of the Fathers that prohibition is no longer read before the Works of Faustus. But the title of Saint remained in the printed Office, and the cult itself, more excellent than the title.

[226] against the sanctity He objects secondly that Lucifer of Cagliari also is venerated in the church of Cagliari: that this Lucifer nevertheless died in schism, and consequently is not a Saint. But, as he frequently alleges uncertain things elsewhere for proof, so he does here also. Wherefore I answer that the sanctity of Lucifer of Cagliari has been vindicated both by others and in our Work at the twentieth of May, and an answer given to the objection concerning schism. The objections too of Tillemont, who wishes to make Lucifer a schismatic, were afterwards solved at the twenty-third of September, under St. Liberius the Pope, §13. And so it is not necessary to answer more to that objection.

[227] of Faustus Thirdly he objects that in the sixth century Priscillian, an infamous heresiarch, was venerated in the church of Palencia in Spain: and for proof he assigns in the margin volume 4 of the Councils of Labbe, column [ ]. I shall recite the very words, which run thus: "Besides, we have learned that the most abandoned sect of the Priscillianists, both in deed and in name, is honored especially by you. I ask, what madness is this, to be led astray superfluously in love of him whom you would not wish to imitate in work?" He will use a wholly new dialectic who from these words shall wish to infer with Tillemont that Priscillian was honored with an ecclesiastical cult. Montanus the bishop, whose that Epistle is, reproves the brethren of the territory of Palencia for various abuses, among which was that they attended with excessive honor and love "the most abandoned sect of the Priscillianists"; that is, not Priscillian himself, but his heretical followers then living, whom perhaps out of an affection of compassion they cherished more than most abandoned men deserved. Perhaps the Priscillianists boasted that this was done in honor of Priscillian: or rather those who are reproved were secretly Priscillianists. Montanus certainly says afterwards of Priscillian: "What at last does the soul of any faithful man venerate in this man (Priscillian) that is consonant with religion, who not only was refuted by holy priests, but whom also worldly princes condemned by the justice of their laws according to the quality of the crime mentioned?" These things indeed indicate that the memory of Priscillian was in some veneration among Priscillianists, whether public or secret; but not among Catholics. And certainly they do not indicate an ecclesiastical cult rendered to him by Catholics. For that those whom Montanus reproves were heretics his words toward the end of the Epistle hint, which are these: "Whence I ask that, condemning and anathematizing the perfidy along with its author, you may hold the rule of right faith," and so forth. Wherefore that objection has no force. For Faustus is venerated by Catholics in an episcopal church. Besides, the things which I have discussed concerning his sanctity and cult in §1 may be seen.

[228] are brought forward and examined, Fourthly, Tillemont observes that Faustus in all likelihood did not retract his errors. This I readily believe, since I have not found errors which he might have retracted. He adds that "it is a terrible thing to have assailed the grace of Jesus Christ, and to have done this even more by artifice and guile than by ignorance, as," he says, "the highest men of the Church reproached Faustus." There is in these words an immense exaggeration, as is clear from what was disputed in §8. Here I say briefly that not even one man conspicuous for erudition and sanctity out of all antiquity has become known to me who both saw the books of Faustus On Grace and Free Will and said such things of Faustus. That grace was assailed by St. Faustus I do not believe; but rather that it was assailed by his Predestinarian adversaries, against whom he was writing, Faustus himself observes in book 1, chapter 4, beginning thus: "When they shall have said, 'It is all of the grace of God,' who would not be bowed with every affection of the heart at a name so worthy of reverence? But when we have answered, 'It is all plainly of grace: but the Creator and Redeemer offers and presses it upon all, for the salvation of all': to these things they, departing far from the path of piety, presume to answer: 'The Savior did not give it to all, because neither did He die for all.' Behold, at once in the second place he appears an assailant of grace who in the first was thought its asserter. They object the name of grace, that they may cover an abominable sense of blasphemy." It is clear that by these words the whole — that is, all the goods by which a man is advanced toward salvation — is ascribed to grace: and that grace is extended much further than it was extended by the adversaries of Faustus.

[229] Fifthly, Tillemont exerts all his force, and calls to his aid Mauguin, which are not only unworthy of a learned man, president of the mint court, accusing Faustus because "he was unwilling to yield to the truth, after St. Augustine had made it so manifest to those who do not wish to make themselves blind, or rather to those whose eyes of the heart the swelling of pride has not blinded. For those truths are more of practice than of speculation, more of the heart" (that is, of affection) "than of the intellect. And I do not know whether, after so many elucidations, anyone can assail them from a mere defect of understanding." Let the fair reader pardon me if I say that assertions of this sort belong rather to ignorance than to theological skill. For all theologians everywhere who have labored for many years to understand well the doctrine of Augustine concerning Grace profess that they follow it: yet they have gone off into very many and greatly diverse opinions, in explaining according to Augustine's mind the diverse effects of grace, and in reconciling them with free will. And so if Faustus had altogether strayed from the truth, which cannot be proved, and had departed from the mind of St. Augustine, which we do not believe, the same would have happened to him as has happened to others. For opinions contrary in many things can indeed all seem probable, but not all be at the same time true.

[230] Let us hear the last argument which those new doctors of humility hurl against Faustus: but have not even any appearance of truth. but briefly, lest the trifles grow. "Faustus could not," he says, "be a Saint without humility." This is altogether true. But, if we believe Tillemont, Faustus could not be humble, since his doctrine is proud. This indeed is denied, nor will it ever be proved. For whatever he asserts about the doctrine of Faustus to prove it is openly false. I have just given the words of Faustus, saying: "It is all plainly of grace." Who then would bear a man fastening upon him the belief that he had received from God nothing but natural life, and that he had of himself the love of justice and virtue, and other like things, which have been abundantly refuted in the course of this? He adds a conclusion worthy of so many calumnies, an observation worthy of the wisdom of Mauguin, whom he praises, when he infers that perhaps all the virtue of Faustus was only apparent, and corrupted by the vice of pride. What shall I answer to fabrications so insipid, not to say insane, save that they are unworthy of refutation? For very many prelates, illustrious for learning and sanctity, who lived with St. Faustus and read his books, detected nothing in him unworthy of a holy man, and consequently held the highest opinion of the sanctity of the Living man, and likewise the highest of the sanctity of the Dead man, even after the council of Orange. And if anyone shall studiously shake out all the deeds and writings of Faustus, he will find in them no indication of pride. And so Mauguin could find only in his own imagination the worm of pride corrupting all the goods of Faustus.

§ XIII. The year in which Faustus wrote the aforesaid books is not altogether certain: they seem to be the same which St. Sidonius extols with wondrous praises.

[ ] The council of Arles, after which that of Lyons was held, We have hitherto said nothing about the year of the council of Arles, at whose request St. Faustus composed his books, nothing either about the time of the council of Lyons which followed, and consequently nothing about the time at which St. Faustus published his books. Labbe, in volume 4 of the Councils, column [ ], fixes that of Arles about the year 475, and that of Lyons a little after that of Arles. The monuments which survive concerning these councils do not clearly hint whether each was held in the same year, or that of Lyons in the following year. The latter becomes more probable to me, because the councils were numerous, so that it is less probable that thirty bishops gathered twice in the same year in different cities. Besides, by the prescription of the supreme Pontiffs the metropolitans of Arles in those times summoned the bishops of the neighboring provinces every year, so that it is highly probable that these were the ordinary councils of two successive years. From the bishops gathered who have become known, it is abundantly gathered that the year 475 does not stray far from the truth, but that the council could also have been held some years earlier. Leontius of Arles, who presided over the council, sat from the year 462, and held the episcopate for many years; but his end has certainly not become known. But we have it from elsewhere that the city of Arles yielded to the Arian Goths in the year 481, or perhaps earlier, so that the council must at least have been held between 462 and 480 on these grounds alone.

[232] more probably seems to be fixed St. Mamertus of Vienne, who was also present at the council, and of whom we have treated at the eleventh of May, perhaps did not survive after the year 475. Certainly he becomes known by no deeds after the year 475. St. Euphronius of Autun, of whom we have treated at the third of August, was already an old man about the year 470, and was still surviving in the year 475, but perhaps not long after. St. Patiens of Lyons had a place in the same council, and survived until nearly the year 480, as has been proved by us at the eleventh of September. From SS. Patiens and Euphronius it becomes highly probable that John the prelate, who is reckoned among the last in the Epistle of Lucidus, is St. John of Chalon, of whom we have treated at the thirtieth of April. For John was ordained bishop of Chalon by SS. Patiens and Euphronius about the year 470, and certainly before Sidonius

himself, who related the matter, was bishop, having been consecrated about the year 472. But from the presence of St. John it is probably gathered that the council was held after the year 470, since two others are reckoned after John, in all likelihood because they had been ordained after him. Fonteius, who is reckoned among the earlier ones, is bishop of Vaison, whom Dionysius of Sainte-Marthe, in volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column 921, finds sitting from the year 450 to the year 472, omitting his presence in the synod of Arles, which was observed by Tillemont. St. Veranus, bishop of Vence, who is believed also to have been present at the council, and is designated by the name of Verianus or Veranius, perhaps did not survive to 475, since his other deeds have become known only down to the year 464, as may be seen in our work at the tenth of September. St. Eutropius of Orange, who was also in the council, perhaps likewise did not live to 475. Certainly his other deeds, given by us at the twenty-seventh of May, have not become known down to that year.

[233] I pass over the other bishops, although several others are known and are Saints, in the year 472 or 473, because they cannot help toward finding a fixed year. This only I observe, that none of them has become known who seems certainly to have been made bishop after the year 470, although the two last may be a little later, of which there is no certainty. I observe secondly that the bishops gathered seem to be from provinces subject partly to the Roman empire, partly to the king of the Burgundians at that time, as is most clearly plain from various already reviewed and from others also known. Now indeed, from the things hitherto mentioned and observed, it seems more probable to me that the council of Arles is to be fixed about the year 472 than deferred to 475. The first reason is that concerning several bishops of that council it is very doubtful whether they survived to the year 475; and concerning none is it established that he was not a bishop before the year 472, so that no reason occurs why that synod should be fixed after the year 472. The other reason is that St. Sidonius seems to have received the books of Faustus On Free Will in the year 474, so that the council of Arles could have been held in the year 472, that of Lyons in the year 473: for it was only after the latter that the books were completed. If anyone should prefer to believe that both were held in the year 473, I shall not deny that this could have been so. But that the books which Sidonius received and celebrated with praises were those On Free Will, I judge entirely with Baronius, and shall presently prove.

[234] Those who fixed the aforesaid councils about the year 475 seem to have believed and before the peace, in the year 475, that they were held after the peace entered into in the year 475 between Euric, king of the Goths in Gaul, and Nepos, emperor of the West. But it seems to me more probable that the councils were held in the time of war, because none of the bishops who were gathered has become known as being from the dominion of Euric, the Arian king of the Goths, although Leontius of Arles otherwise had the right of summoning also the bishops of both Narbonese provinces. Of these, the first Narbonese was almost wholly under the Goths, and we find no bishops from it in the said councils, unless perhaps Crocus, whom some believe to be of Nîmes. If this conjecture is true, either Nîmes, which was occupied by the Goths about that time, had not yet yielded to their arms, or Crocus was in exile.

[235] Sidonius, book 7, Epistle 6, speaks thus of the exile of Crocus: made between Euric and Nepos. "I say nothing of your colleagues Crocus and Simplicius, whom, driven out from the sees handed over to them, a like punishment of an unlike exile torments. For one of them grieves that he does not see whither he may return; the other grieves that he sees whither he does not return." If this Crocus was of Nîmes, as Sirmond believed, in exile at Arles he could see Nîmes, already captured, at the time when Sidonius was writing those words in the year 474. Of whatever city Crocus was bishop, certainly none has become known who came to the council from the dominion of the Goths, and thence it is probable that that of Arles was held in the time of war, nay even before the capture of Nîmes. For if the Goths had held Nîmes before, in all likelihood the bishops would not have chosen the city of Arles for a council, as being too near the flame of war. In the History of Occitania, volume 1, page 217, the storming of Nîmes by the Goths is fixed about the year 473. And so that of Arles could have gone before in the year 472 or in the first part of the year 473, and the following one have been gathered at Lyons.

[236] The chief reason, however, why I judge that both councils were held Sidonius, in an Epistle to be fixed in the year 474, or at the end of 473, and the books of Faustus written before the year 474, and on account of which I have judged that the year should be more closely investigated, is drawn from the opinion of Baronius, which I see to be excellently founded, even though some disagree. For the Most Eminent writer, at the year 490, number 12, briefly reviews the praises with which Sidonius attended some Work of Faustus in book 9, Epistle 9, and does not doubt that that Work is his books On Grace and Free Will. But the said Epistle of Sidonius was given when the city of Clermont had not yet yielded to the Goths, that is, certainly before the year 475, in which the Goths obtained it by the conditions of the peace. Tillemont, volume 16, under St. Sidonius, article 26, refers the said Epistle of St. Sidonius to the year 474. Certainly it cannot be fixed later, and seems rather to be referred to the beginning of that year than to the end. Perhaps it may even have been written in the year 473 as it was running to its close. There had gone before another Epistle of Sidonius to Faustus, which, if it has come down to us, will be the third of the ninth book. But this, since it did not go before the other by a very long time but only by a few months, seems altogether to have been written in the year 473, before the Goths, who in that year besieged the city of Clermont in vain, had approached the city, but when they had already struck fear into the people of Clermont. Tillemont agrees, under Sidonius, article 22, referring the Epistle to the beginning of the Gothic war in Auvergne, and to the year 473.

[237] which another mentioned here had preceded, Sidonius begins the Epistle thus: "Your eloquence keeps its custom as much as your affection: and on this account we receive your utterance greatly, because you write learnedly; your affection, because you write willingly. But for the present, leave being first asked and obtained, I reckon it most cautious and most wholesome — especially through these cities which lie much apart by their situation, while the roads are suspect from the movements of the nations — to give up a more frequent pen; and, the diligence of mutual discourse being for a while put off, rather to take up the care of keeping silence. Which, among persons bound by an intervening affection, although it is most harsh and most bitter, is nevertheless brought about not by causes of any sort whatever, but by very many, certain, and necessary ones." He reviews the causes, and among these sets down the eloquence of Faustus, which he celebrates at length, and commends himself to his prayers. Most of the words have already been given above. At the end too he hints that a censure by Faustus of this Epistle would not be unwelcome to him. But from this indication, as well as from the time of each, it is in some measure gathered that it is that very Epistle which he mentions in the ninth of the same book. For this one he begins thus: "You have complained to us in common, most sacred Man, of a long silence. I recognize the zeal of your side herein; the guilt of ours I do not recognize. For, long since bidden to chatter, I was not silent, since a letter ran on before these; in the reviewing of which too, when it had come to Riez, you who were then at Apt were most aptly absent. And this was greatly to my wish and much desired, that the Epistle enjoined upon me should neither be denied to friendship as written, nor be subjected to censure as read." From these things we have it that by each Epistle Sidonius answered a letter of Faustus, which has perished; but that the second of Faustus, written at Apt, was written at almost the same time at which the earlier one of Sidonius had come to Riez, without his knowing it.

[238] he signifies that there had fallen into his hands the longed-for After these things, which declare the mutual friendship of those Saints, Sidonius first says that he has no matter for writing beyond "Hail" and "Farewell." Presently, however, he subjoins that matter has been offered him for a grave expostulation — namely that Faustus had sent his books into Britain, and that the man who was carrying them, passing through Clermont in Auvergne, had not communicated them before his departure. In what manner at last he obtained them he sets out festively, mingling friendly expostulations, so as the more to heighten the praises of Faustus. "But it is well," he says, "it is well, that as I was on the very point of folding up my little sheet a strong matter came running up; concerning the reproaching of which, if either my joy or my anger shall have restrained itself longer, I shall myself judge that I deserve the affront I have received. You have come, Master, into my hands, and I not only exult but insult; you have come: and indeed such as our longings have this long time now been awaiting." He hints that there had come into his hands that Work which he had long desired. But Sidonius, who was a friend of many bishops of the council of Arles, and wrote Epistles to many of them, could easily have understood from them that Faustus had there been admonished to write against the Predestinarians; this very Work therefore he seems to have longed for.

[239] He goes on thus: "I doubt indeed whether even unwillingly, but certainly like one unwilling: [Work of Faustus, of which, as it had not been directed to him, he expostulates in friendly fashion,] since by your providing — or, if nevertheless you deny this too strongly, by your acquiescing — I have been left ungreeted by your books, and by these, which is far more injurious, as they passed by the territory of Auvergne, grazing not only my walls but even my very sides." (Namely, the bearer, passing through Auvergne, had given no indication of them.) "Were you afraid that we should envy your sayings? But by God's indulgence there is no vice to which we are less addicted: to which, if I were subject on my part as to the rest, even so despair of attaining would take away all rivalry in contending. Or were you dreading the haughtiness of a difficult and rigid applauder? And what neck of skill is so great in anyone, or what dropsy, that he would not attend even your lukewarm things with the most fervent praises? Or did you take care that I should be disdained and neglected because you despised me as younger? which I little believe: or because unlearned? which I bear the better, yet in such a way that, though I do not know how to speak, I do know how to hear; because those too who have been present at the circus games do not withhold their opinion about the chariots. Or were we at variance by some chance, so that we might be thought likely to disparage those little books which you had published? And yet, God being our leader, not even enemies can pretend that our friendships are slight. 'Whose are these things?' you say. Behold, I now lay open both what I rejoice to have tracked down and what I am angry at you for having hidden.

[240] "I have read your volumes, which Riochatus, prelate and monk, and twice a pilgrim of this world, carries back for you to your Britons — that Faustus being at present rather one who does not grow old, and who, not about to fail the living after his burial, will by the very things which he wrote become his own survivor. This same venerable man therefore, while he was tarrying at our town until the storm of the stirred-up nations should cease to roar — whose whirlwind of that likeness had then bristled on this side and on that — so uncovered the rest of your gifts that most politely he covered up the more excellent things which he was carrying, dissembling to illuminate my thorns with your flowers. But after two months or more, even so

having set out quickly from us, when some of the travelers had betrayed that he was secretly carrying the treasures of a mystic hoard in closed wrappings, I pursued him as he departed with swift horses, which could easily outstrip the day's journey he had made before, and, seizing the robber first by the throat with a kiss, I leapt upon him with human jest but with the gesture of a beast — as if a bereaved Parthian tigress, about to shake loose one or another of her cubs, should with flying foot spring over the neck of the ravisher. Why say more? I embrace the knees of my captured guest, I halt the beasts, I bind the reins, I loose the packs, I find the volume I sought, I read it eagerly, I make excerpts, breaking off the greatest heads from great matters. The leaping readiness of my scribes also afforded a certain shortcut to me as I hastened to dictate, for they took down in signs what they could not hold in letters. With what tears indeed we were wet, watered by mutual weeping in turn, then when we were parted from an embrace often repeated, it would be long to have told, nor does it matter. What suffices for a triumphal joy is that, laden with the spoils of charity and possessed of a spiritual booty, I carried myself home.

[241] what this Work was, he sets out, and attends it with the highest praises "You ask now what I judge of my spoils? I would rather not yet disclose it, that you might hang the longer in expectation: for I should avenge myself more if I kept silent about what I felt. But you yourself are not proud in vain, since you understand that there is in you the power of so perorating that upon your reader, whether reluctant or willing, the force of the pleasure hammers out the necessity of praise. Accordingly receive what we, even after suffering an injury, judge concerning your writings. We have read a most laborious Work, manifold, keen, sublime, arranged under headings and heaped with examples, bipartite under the scheme of a dialogue, quadripartite under the theme of the cases. But you had written very many things ardently, more things with pomp: these simply, yet not rustically; those acutely, yet not craftily: weighty matters maturely, deep matters carefully, doubtful matters steadily, matters full of argument in the manner of a disputant, some things severely, some blandly, all things morally, choicely, powerfully, most eloquently. And so, following you through so many kinds of narrating over the whole field of a most ample composition, I have easily perceived nothing in the eloquence of others, nothing in their talents, polished to the same degree. That I feel these things truly you sufficiently prove, since even when offended I judge no otherwise. In short, the discourse of one absent, so far as we judge, cannot grow greater, unless perhaps something be added to these by the voice, the hand, the movement, the artful modesty of the author speaking face to face.

[242] naming in particular his exact dialectic in arguing: "Therefore, endowed with these gifts of mind and of letters, you have wedded to yourself, my lord Bishop, a beautiful woman, but such a one as marries with Deuteronomy's approval: whom you, while still a young man, having caught sight of her amid hostile troops, and having fallen in love with her there in the battle line of the opposing party, in no way repulsed by the warriors who stood in the way, you carried off with the conquering arm of desire: namely philosophy, who, forcibly taken out from the number of the sacrilegious arts, her hair of superfluous religion shorn and the eyebrow of secular knowledge, and the wrinkles of her very ancient garments cut away — that is, the twistings of a gloomy dialectic which veil what is false and unlawful in morals — now purified, has joined her limbs to you in a mystic embrace." These last words, said to commend the philosophy of Faustus, signify that he made philosophy Christian, reasoning solely from the sacred Letters, having rejected the profane knowledge of the philosophers, poets, and other heathen. He then goes on to say more in praise of the exact logic of Faustus, which he indicates to have nothing of affectation and much of strength. Passing over the rest, I bring the later part over here. "Nay rather," he says, "whoever contends with you will find that Stoics, Cynics, Peripatetics, heresiarchs are shaken by their own arms and by their own engines. For their followers, if they resist Christian doctrine and sense, presently, bound by you as their master with homebred entanglements, will be netted headlong in their own toils, while the hooked syllogisms of your proposition catch the slippery tongue of those who shuffle, and while you rather tie up slippery questions with categorical coils, after the manner of keen physicians, who, when reason compels, make a remedy against poisons even out of a serpent."

[243] celebrating nevertheless no less the virtues of Faustus, At last he closes the Epistle, going on thus: "But this in these times only under the contemplation of your conscience or the strength of your teaching. For who could follow your footsteps with an equal step, to whom alone it has been given to speak better than you have learned, to live better than you speak? Wherefore all good men will deservedly celebrate you as most blessed, and that above all men, in your own day: whose life has doubly shone forth both by your words and by your deeds, so that when indeed the right hand has already numbered your years, you may depart — proclaimed by your own age, to be longed for by another — praiseworthy in both kinds of action, about to leave yourself to strangers and your works to those nearest you. Deign to be mindful of us, my lord Bishop." Thus far Sidonius, whose last words I shall first briefly expound.

[244] On those words, "when indeed the right hand has already numbered your years," for whom he prays that he may complete the age of a hundred years. Sirmond observes in his Annotata, and proves, that numbers were indicated by the ancients by various bendings of the fingers; and that with the fingers of the left hand they counted up to a hundred, and at the hundredth passed over to the right. Hence to number one's years with the right hand is the same as to be a hundred years old. Several men therefore have thought that Faustus lived beyond a hundred years; but Sirmond believed that Sidonius used hyperbole. But if anyone shall attentively consider the words, he will easily perceive that Sidonius is making pious prayers for a long life for Faustus, and is speaking of future time, not of the present. Wherefore he speaks only of the age to which he hoped Faustus would come, and in which he believed he would die. This anyone will see, if only he separate the word quandoquidem into two, as the phrasing itself demands: for the word quandoquidem has no force, but the word quando signifies the long old age in which he hopes he will die. The sense is this: "All good men have celebrated you as most blessed… whose life has so shone forth that… you may depart" — that is, die — "proclaimed by your own age, to be longed for by another." But lest by those words he should seem as it were to desire his death, he interposes, "when indeed the right hand has already numbered your years" — that is, when you shall have reached a hundred years and more.

[245] Let us now weigh the eulogy given to the books of Faustus, The sayings of Sidonius fit excellently the books of Faustus which is so magnificent that, although Sidonius is everywhere most liberal in praising, I nevertheless find no writings of any other man equally proclaimed by him. But it is doubted whether Sidonius gave that eulogy to the books of Faustus On Free Will, or to certain others still unknown. Baronius, at the year 490, number 15, infers from the very words of Sidonius that no others were praised by him than the books On Grace and Free Will. "We have read a most laborious Work, manifold, keen, sublime, arranged under headings and heaped with examples, bipartite under the scheme of a dialogue, quadripartite under the theme of the cases." Having recited these words, Baronius subjoins: "So plainly: for it appears that that Commentary is distinguished into two books" (so the Work is bipartite), "divided by chapters and headings, neatly presenting the figure of a dialogue, quadripartite under the theme of the cases." Then he tries to assign four different subject matters. These can easily be found, but more probably in another manner, as I shall show below. Besides, no one will be able prudently to doubt that that Work of Faustus is most laborious, since it is so stuffed with texts of sacred Scripture that we shall scarcely find another among the holy Fathers fuller of them. No prudent man will doubt that it is manifold, since in the same Work many errors are refuted and very many arguments weighed.

[246] That the Work is keen, the very reading most openly teaches, since everywhere Faustus pursues the Predestinarians foot to foot, On Grace and Free Will: and always refutes both their errors and those of Pelagius by keen reasonings, and from time to time by rather keen words as well. Sublime the Work is made by the very sublimity of the subject matter, by the perpetual authority of sacred Scripture, and by the brightness in its words and reasonings. It is arranged not only under headings, as is plain to the eye, but no less heaped with examples, since it contains very many histories of sacred Scripture. No less true are the things which Sidonius sets forth to commend the elegance, variety, and neatness of the style, or the solidity and keenness of the reasonings. Wherefore I judge altogether with Baronius that the holy prelate was speaking of the books of Faustus On Grace and Free Will. For both the time at which it was written favors this opinion; and among the Works of Faustus which Gennadius reviews none seems to have been of such bulk that Sidonius could say all the aforesaid things of it. Besides, by the words given at number 238 Sidonius hints that he had for a long time now desired that Work. This again fits especially the said books, whose being composed by Faustus he could scarcely be ignorant of for a long time, on account of the commission of the council given long before. Of the composition of any other Work he would in all likelihood have known nothing.

[247] for they present in some fashion the scheme of a dialogue, Nevertheless Sirmond judged in his Annotata that what is said, "bipartite under the scheme of a dialogue, quadripartite under the theme of the cases," does not fit this Work; and therefore he thinks that the Work praised by Sidonius has perished. But the Work is certainly bipartite, since it is divided into two books. But as regards the scheme of a dialogue, Baronius believed it neatly expressed in that Work, and therefore Sidonius could easily have judged the same, who not rarely uses words in a signification somewhat different from the ancient and common one. He did not, however, say that it is a dialogue strictly so called, but that the form or likeness of a dialogue shines forth in that Work. But this he could say, because Faustus most frequently brings in his adversaries speaking; nay, he expresses almost all their opinions and objections in their own person, and then begins to refute them. This manner of reasoning differs little from a dialogue strictly so called, in which the names of the interlocutors are expressed. And so not ineptly did Sidonius say that the Work was composed under the scheme of a dialogue. If anyone shall be willing diligently and attentively to read through the Work of Faustus, he will find the opinions and objections of the adversaries briefly set out at the beginnings of the chapters, and presently Faustus reasoning at length against them, sometimes even through the following chapters without another objection. By this reasoning therefore Sidonius could find the form of a dialogue in that Work. Perhaps, however, he meant nothing except that the whole dissertation — understanding by the name of dialogue a dissertation — was divided into two parts.

[248] and they contain four chief questions. But as regards the four parts of the cases, or the four chief questions which Faustus handled, I think they are to be assigned thus. First he proved against Pelagius that a man can neither be saved by labor alone, nor work well unto salvation without the grace of God; and at the same time that man is born in original sin, and that baptism is necessary for little ones. Secondly, against the Predestinarians he shows that a man is not saved by the grace of God alone without good works; but that grace is given to men so that they may work well and obtain salvation. Thirdly, against the same he proves at length that man's free will, even though it be weakened and enfeebled, is not utterly extinguished, nor is it taken away by the foreknowledge or predestination of God; but that by the grace of God, which he contends no one lacks without his own fault, a man is made free even for working well. To this he also refers the fact that Christ died for all, as he excellently proves; that God wills all to be saved; that He impels no one to sin. Fourthly and finally he proves that also

before the coming of Christ, both under the written Law and under the Law of nature, many had faith through the grace of God, and lived rightly, and obtained salvation.

[249] Nothing seems to be lacking to the Work: nor did Faustus But this fourth question I judge to have been added to the rest at the command of the council of Lyons. For of that question nothing is read in the Epistle of Faustus, given at number 90. But in the Epistle of Lucidus, which is later, the contrary error is retracted, and on that occasion the Fathers of the council of Lyons will have asked that Faustus should prove this too more amply. And so I do not agree with Baronius, who at number 16 judges that those things are now lacking to the books of Faustus which the council desired to be added. Nor can I in any way approve the suspicion of the Most Eminent man expressed at number 12. For there, because Faustus himself did not send his books to Sidonius, he says: "It seems it can be sufficiently understood that Faustus did not communicate them to all, fearing assuredly out of a bad conscience lest the snares in them lying hidden under the grass, being detected by some man of acute wit and most skilled in doctrines, should be utterly scattered. But Sidonius, although a pious and learned man, had not yet as a younger man searched out the inner recesses of ecclesiastical matters." Let the studious reader only consider that Faustus wrote his books at the request of thirty bishops. By what reasoning therefore could he hide them, when they were being written by the counsel of so many bishops, in order that they might be published and the Predestinarian heresy refuted in them be rooted out?

[250] Now indeed he judged Sidonius either most skilled in doctrines, omit to send it to Sidonius, or as not yet having searched out the inner recesses of ecclesiastical matters. The first Baronius seems to mean when he notes that the books were not sent to him by Faustus; the other, when he reads those books so greatly praised by Sidonius. Certainly both will not be true, and perhaps neither, which nevertheless I would not dare to say. Sidonius was at least of the most acute wit, and before his episcopate was not only most instructed in profane letters and in philosophy, but neither had he wholly neglected sacred letters. He had held the episcopate about two years before the praised letter to Faustus, and in that time he without doubt made no little progress in sacred letters, so that he could have the doctrine of the Church concerning Grace and free will abundantly perceived, and judge prudently of the books of Faustus. This he himself indicates in the praised Epistle, where he asks why he had not received the books from Faustus himself, speaking thus: "Or (do you despise me) because unlearned? which I bear the better, yet in such a way that, though I do not know how to speak, I do know how to hear." The most humble man admits that he is unlearned for writing about those matters, not for judging of them. For by "to hear" he signifies to read and to understand, as what follows clearly indicates. And so Sidonius himself hints that his judgment concerning them is not to be despised.

[251] But whether he was already then most skilled in doctrines because he would have had to fear his judgment. I do not inquire. But certainly among the bishops by whose prayers Faustus had been induced to write there were not a few most skilled in doctrines, so that he need not have feared one, and that a friend, Sidonius. And indeed for this cause alone I judge that Faustus did not send his books to Sidonius at that time, because he could not send written copies to all at once. That he might honorably send them to Sidonius, a written copy had to be sent, such as he was sending into Britain. For it would have been little consonant with courtesy to send Sidonius a copy which he could not keep, but only transcribe. Sidonius himself did not believe that Faustus was unwilling that he should have a copy transcribed, although he jests after his manner, so as more freely to celebrate Faustus and to declare his friendship. "You have come," he says, "Master, into my hands:… I doubt indeed whether even unwillingly, but certainly like one unwilling," and so forth. Let there depart therefore the unfair suspicions by which the reputation of Faustus has everywhere been torn, and which have no foundation whatever. Suspicions of this sort Baronius must be reckoned to have retracted when he retracted what he had said against the sanctity of Faustus. But others afterwards adopted like things, and theologians therefore held any of the more obscure assertions of Faustus suspect, both because they lent their ears to suspicions of this sort, and because they believed that St. Caesarius, whom Baronius makes to have been writing against the books of Faustus from the year 490, really withstood him. But St. Caesarius in the year 490 was a young man of about twenty years, and was living at Lérins in his monastic novitiate, nor did he ever write against Faustus, but made much of him as a holy Man, as has been proved above and at the twenty-seventh of August, under St. Caesarius.

§ XIV. The Saint was among the legates for arranging peace with the Goths: he wrote two little Works against the Macedonians and the Arians, the first published under the name of Paschasius, the other probably the Breviarium.

[ ] Faustus was a legate with three bishops After the books On Grace and Free Will were written before the year 474, on occasion of which we have discussed so many things, Faustus seems in the year 474 to have been one of the four bishops who were sent as legates by the emperor Nepos to arrange peace with Euric, king of the Goths. Concerning that peace negotiation was begun in the year 474, but the treaty was not completed before the year 475, St. Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, at last intervening, as is narrated by us in volume 2 of January, at the twenty-first day, in the Life of St. Epiphanius, chapter 7. More concerning that peace the historians will relate. But that St. Faustus intervened with three other bishops we have from Sidonius, book 7, Epistle 6, which he gave in the year 474 to Basil, bishop of Aix, one of the four legates, in order to exhort him to take care in the pact with the Arian king concerning the Catholic religion.

[253] to treat of peace with King Euric. But toward the end of the Epistle he thus addresses him: "You are found in the midst of the most sacred pontiffs Leontius (of Arles), Faustus, Graecus (of Marseilles) in city, in order, in charity. Through you the evils of treaties run, through you the pacts and conditions of each kingdom are carried." Sidonius seems to have known nothing of the conditions proposed when he was writing that Epistle. But when he gave the following one, perhaps in the year 475, to Graecus of Marseilles, another of the legates, he had understood that Auvergne was to be handed over to the Goths: about which matter he complains much. That peace was in truth little honorable to the Roman empire, and was kept by the Goths only a few years. But the bishops of Gaul do not seem to have been at fault; rather the necessity was great, nor was the peace concluded before St. Epiphanius, with new mandates no doubt, was sent from Italy to Toulouse to Euric, so that it can even be doubted whether the four earlier legates were present at the conclusion of the peace.

[254] He wrote a little Work On the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians: Faustus wrote, whether after this time or before, certain little Works also against the Arians and the Macedonians. One Gennadius mentions in the first place thus: "Faustus, made bishop at regnum (read Riez) in Gaul from being abbot of the monastery of Lérins, a man sufficiently intent upon the divine Scriptures, taking occasion from the handing down of the creed, composed a book On the Holy Spirit: in which he shows that He is, according to the faith of the Fathers, consubstantial and coeternal with the Father and the Son, and holds the fullness of the Trinity." Of the other he then has it thus: "I have read also his small little book against the Arians and Macedonians, in which he proclaims the Trinity coessential." These little Works have not yet been published under the name of Faustus himself: they seem, however, to be extant under another's name, as learned men have observed. Concerning the first indeed no doubt remains to me that it is the Work On the Holy Spirit divided into two books, which was published under the name of Paschasius, deacon of the Roman Church, and is found in volume 8 of the Lyons Library of the Fathers, page 807, under this title: "Of St. Paschasius, Cardinal Deacon of the Holy Roman Church, On the Holy Spirit, two books, in which an exposition of the creed is contained, against the errors of Macedonius."

[255] There are added there the words of St. Gregory the Great, book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 40, this divided into two books, and published under the name of Paschasius, where he treats of Paschasius, and says these things of his books: "Whose most correct and brilliant books on the Holy Spirit are extant among us." There are added also the words of Bellarmine, explaining the saying of Gregory about the published books, and praising them, as they were everywhere praised by other moderns and ascribed to Paschasius. But the said books were first, so far as I know, judged not to be Paschasius's, and attributed to Faustus of Riez, by Casimir Oudin in the Supplement on Writers which he published as a Catholic in the year 1686. Coustant followed in his Annotata on the Works of St. Hilary, column [ ]. Tillemont, under Faustus, article 8, assigns both, and hints that he is inclined to the same opinion. The learned Benedictines who write the Literary History in French, volume 2, page 601, likewise believe the praised Work is to be ascribed to Faustus, and Ceillier declares that his own opinion is the same, in Sacred Authors, volume 15, page 352, under Paschasius the deacon. I pass over others: for those books are to be asserted for Faustus not by the number of authors who attribute them to him, but by the weight of arguments. But first I could wish that the studious reader would observe with me how much prejudice against Faustus avails. For the said books seemed to all most approved as long as no one knew that they were Faustus's: but when this had become known, they were exposed to censure on account of the opinion concerning the soul, of which we treated in §5.

[256] Let us now hear briefly the arguments of Oudin and Coustant, as is proved partly from manuscript codices, which, after a diligent consideration of the books themselves, seem to me altogether such as to leave no doubt about the author of that Work. For brevity's sake, however, I shall from time to time use my own words, although I willingly profess that I have almost everything from the said writers. Oudin brings forward the first argument thus: "But that the Work is Faustus's own is proved first from a Vatican manuscript codex, whence they were first printed, which Jacques Sirmond saw and held, inscribed under the name of Faustus." This argument Trithemius corroborates, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, in the Frankfurt edition of the year 1601, page 236, where among the Works of Faustus there is numbered On the Holy Spirit, book 1, and this beginning is given: "The Catholic faith in one…," which is the very beginning of the Work attributed to Paschasius. And so, since Trithemius wrote before the Work was printed, it is necessary that he saw at least one codex or several in which the Work was ascribed to Faustus. This argument, however, does not suffice alone, since Oudin, in the Commentary on Writers composed afterwards, column 1305, admits that he also saw a manuscript codex of the library of Saint-Germain in Paris, and that with the name of Paschasius, deacon of the city of Rome. But the argument is strengthened by another consideration as well: for Oudin, at column [ ], shows that the aforesaid Work On the Holy Spirit was praised under the name of Faustus from the ninth century by Sedulius Scotus, and alleges two passages. Wherefore at least a greater authority fights for Faustus from the manuscripts than against Faustus or for Paschasius.

[257] The second argument, which at first

is the stronger, is drawn from the words of Gennadius, who says that Faustus wrote the Work On the Holy Spirit "taking occasion from the handing down of the creed." partly from the words of Gennadius, partly from his own opinions, For in fact the author of the aforesaid Work begins from the creed, and from these words of the creed, "I believe also in the Holy Spirit," he snatches the occasion of proving more amply the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. St. Gregory says indeed that Paschasius wrote books on the Holy Spirit; but he does not add that he did this on the occasion of the creed, so that by this observation of Gennadius Faustus would already claim the books for himself more probably, even if other arguments were lacking. The third argument too is strong: that in that Work there is found the singular opinion of Faustus concerning the soul, which in book 2, chapter 1, is called "a corporeal matter, so that it can indeed be called incorporeal when compared with a body, but not so when referred to its Author." This singular opinion — by no means to be followed at this time — of which I have discussed much in §5, Faustus loved, because he believed it useful "against the Arian… depravities," as he speaks in the Epistle written on that opinion. Oudin, in the praised Commentary, adds several other things which are found the same or very similar in this Work and in the others of Faustus. Coustant too shows the likeness of this Work with the other writings of Faustus, writing thus briefly: "But the wonderful agreement of those books with the other Works of Faustus greatly favors it. For, for example, in book 1, chapter 5, the objection against the eternity of the Son is dissolved by the same reasoning as in Epistle 16 of Faustus… Many arguments of this kind are at hand: but the matter does not belong to this place." Then he assigns several Homilies in which almost the same things are found as in the Work On the Holy Spirit.

[258] and from the likeness with other things disputed by Faustus, "Let the reader nevertheless pardon us again," he says, "if we advise that he can be greatly helped from this in tracking down and recognizing the author of most of the Homilies of the pseudo-Eusebius of Gaul. For let him compare first the Preface of these books with one Homily of the aforesaid Eusebius On the Creed, then this with another likewise inscribed On the Creed, and then both with the two On the Nativity and with most of those On Easter, On the Ascension, and so forth. He will moreover find in them so great an agreement that he will no longer doubt about the Parent. Besides, whoever shall have compared the Eusebian Homily on the feast of the Holy Trinity with chapters 9 and 12 of the aforesaid first book On the Holy Spirit, and also with book 2, chapter 4, will with easy effort detect that each Work belongs to the same man." Thus far Coustant, whose observation is most true. But that the Homilies published in the Libraries of the Fathers under the name of Eusebius, bishop of Gaul, seem for the most part to be Faustus's, and by name those praised here, we shall say below. But Coustant wished to indicate the conformity not only in the opinions but also in the style, as I judge.

[259] and above all from the style, which is entirely his own. Certainly from the conformity of style the fourth argument of Oudin is taken, which seems to me so manifest that I seem to recognize Faustus entire in the Work On the Holy Spirit. For in this Work and in the books On Grace and Free Will there is plainly the same method of writing, so that I do not hesitate to call those two Works as like in the wit and artifice of the writer as they are different in the subject matter which is treated. Each contains two books; the single books are divided into several chapters; headings are prefixed to the chapters, by which the things there treated are briefly indicated. These things concern the form of each Work, which I admit are to be reckoned of less account. But in each Work there is plainly the same style, the same character of a not inelegant diction, the same construction of words, the same form of periods, the same method for the most part of speaking in clauses and of arguing concisely, the same habit of frequently questioning and addressing the reader. Again in each Work you would find plainly the same manner of proposing the objections of adversaries, the same order in refuting them at length, the same frequency of texts of sacred Scripture. Finally, those very things which are so frequent in Faustus that they seem as it were proper to him are found no less in the Work On the Holy Spirit, and manifestly betray their Author. Such is that "It is not so," or "Not so is it," which Sirmond observed to be proper to Faustus, and others have acknowledged. Faustus uses these words everywhere after objections have been proposed, and thus in the praised Work, and that not a lengthy one, you would find at least eight times, "It is not so." It is familiar too to Faustus to indicate objections by the words "But you say," which again is no less frequent in the Work On the Holy Spirit. I pass over other things: for from what has been said we so recognize the whole genius of Faustus in that Work that no prudent doubt remains about the Author.

[260] But the things which are objected in order to claim the Work for Paschasius the deacon To the objections are utterly light. William Cave, in his Literary History, at the very beginning of the sixth century, under Paschasius the deacon, admits that the arguments of Oudin in the Supplement are not wholly to be despised, yet would have it that we should not rashly judge the Work not to be Paschasius's. He objects the authority of St. Gregory, "expressly attributing them," he says, "to Paschasius the deacon." But St. Gregory says that in his time there existed books of Paschasius on the Holy Spirit. He does not say that these are the very ones whose author we are now seeking. He does not say that Paschasius wrote those books "taking occasion from the handing down of the creed," as these were written, and as Gennadius testifies the Work On the Holy Spirit was written by Faustus. And so the authority of Gennadius claims these very ones for Faustus, and all that has already been said above about the likeness of style and of opinions confirms them for Faustus. But the authority of Gregory can only prove that there once existed some books of Paschasius on the Holy Spirit, which may have perished, or may still lie hidden.

[261] He objects besides Sigebert, chapter 17, and Trithemius, On Writers, page 237. an answer is made. The first says the same as St. Gregory, and perhaps never saw the books of Paschasius. But Trithemius attributes an altogether different Work to Paschasius, writing thus of him: "He wrote (as Gregory testifies) a distinguished volume against the errors of the Greeks concerning the Holy Spirit, in 3 books." The Work with which we are dealing was not written against the errors of the Greeks, but against Macedonius; nor is it divided into 3 books, but into two. Whether the sayings of Trithemius about the Work of Paschasius are true I do not inquire. But at least they cannot fit the Work which we attribute to Faustus. Nor does it press against Faustus that Gennadius says, "He composed a book On the Holy Spirit," as though he meant only one book, whereas there are two. For by "book" he could understand the Work, since he does not say "one book": or, if perhaps at the beginning it was one, it could afterwards have been divided into two. Trithemius indeed says "book 1"; but by reciting the beginning he leaves no doubt about his opinion. And so those objections have no force against the arguments by which that little Work is claimed for Faustus.

[262] The other little Work of Faustus against the Arians and Macedonians, What the other little book of Faustus is has not yet become known: which Gennadius calls "a small little book," in all likelihood also survives, but cannot be assigned by equally certain indications. Some have wished that the earlier part of the Epistle of Faustus, of which we treated in §5, should be designated. But that opinion is utterly improbable, and has already been refuted by others. Tillemont, article 8, doubtfully assigns either the Homily on the most holy Trinity, or some writing On the Account of the Faith, part of which is found in a Sermon once ascribed to St. Augustine, which is now in the Appendix of the sermons of St. Augustine, Sermon 234, volume 5 of the Benedictine edition. That the praised Homily on the Trinity is Faustus's I do not doubt. Of that other writing, which in all likelihood is also a Homily or Sermon, I would not dare to say this so certainly, since I have seen only a part in the Works of Augustine, and in it I do not find Faustus so evidently, although the style does not stray far from his genius. But that Gennadius was not speaking of those Sermons I am entirely persuaded, because he calls it "a small little book," so that he seems to speak of some little Work not indeed very lengthy, yet of greater bulk than the Homilies are, of which Faustus composed very many. In several Homilies too he argued against the Arians and Macedonians: Gennadius therefore could have assigned many, if he had wished to treat of the Homilies of Faustus. Wherefore I judge altogether that the brief little book mentioned by him is distinct from all the Homilies. Hence some believe that that little book has perished. But I judge both that the little book survives and that it is known, but hitherto without the author's name.

[263] but the Breviarium published by Sirmond, Sirmond published in the year 1630 the Dogmatic Little Works of Five Ancient Writers, the third of which, at page 73, bears this title: "A Breviarium of the faith against the Arian heretics, in which the equality of the three divine Persons is clearly proved by very many passages and arguments of sacred Scripture; by an uncertain but most ancient author." This title Sirmond himself framed, who in the Preface, number 3, assigns two codices from which he published that little Work, the one of Corbie, the other of Pithou. In these, he says, the little book is more simply inscribed "A Breviarium against the Arians," or "A Breviarium against the heretics." Further, Sirmond there suspects that that Breviarium was written about the times of St. Leo, that is, about the middle of the fifth century, and therefore that it is perhaps the one which had been sent by Julian of Cos to Pope Leo at Constantinople, as we have from Leo's Epistle 86 (elsewhere 56) to Julian, where Leo says that he had not yet received it.

[264] which from its Latin style is not Julian of Cos's, But that suspicion about Julian of Cos seems improbable, since the little Work is that of a Latin writer, not a Greek, as is sufficiently gathered from the style. Our Chifflet, in the Preface to the Works of Ferrandus published by him, page XI, testifies that he afterwards found that Breviarium in a codex of the Charterhouse of Portes with this inscription: "The book of Alcuin the deacon against the Arians": and thence he concludes that it is a little Work of Alcuin. This opinion at once had many followers, as the present-day Benedictine writers observe in the Literary History of France, volume 4, under Alcuin, page 326, where they call it as it were the common opinion; yet they admit that that opinion rests on no arguments, but on the sole authority of one manuscript codex, and, they say, "perhaps on some likeness of style."

[264] nor does it seem to be Alcuin's, But in my judgment that opinion is utterly improbable, and I by no means doubt that the inscription of the codex which Chifflet saw in the Charterhouse of Portes is false, as several others are. Chifflet did not say of about what age that codex is. But of the Corbie codex, in which the praised little Work is found anonymous, he observed in the same place that it at least seems to have been written in the age of Alcuin, and he had made the earlier codex much more ancient, and had believed it written in the time of Pope Vigilius, that is, in the sixth century, and two centuries before Alcuin. If by good arguments

so great an antiquity of that codex was asserted, or even a greater antiquity than that of Alcuin is to be attributed to the said codex, the Breviarium against the Arians inserted in it ought by no means to stand in the way; but rather from that very codex it will be proved that that Breviarium is much more ancient than Alcuin, as Sirmond rightly saw.

[266] By a single argument it will become manifest that that Breviarium is not Alcuin's, from the age in which it was written, and from its very style, but much more ancient. Maimbourg, in the History of Arianism, volume 2, page 517, observes that that heresy was utterly extinguished about the year 660, that is, a whole century and more before Alcuin began to write little Works. To what end, therefore, would Alcuin at the close of the eighth century have composed a laborious little Work against a heresy long since dead and buried even in Gaul? Nor let anyone here answer that one could write even against a dead heresy. For at least he could not write such a little Work against dead Arians as one in which the author everywhere disputes against the living, and instructs Catholics against them. Out of six hundred passages by which this can be proved I adduce one. Of the Arians he says at page 131: "But they, if they can seduce any of ours, inconsiderately rebaptize them." This does not fit the times of Alcuin, as neither does the whole little Work, whose style too is much different from the style of Alcuin.

[167] But that that Breviarium is St. Faustus's — even though I find it hitherto asserted by no one — various things persuade me. it fits excellently the words of Gennadius about that little book, For first, the sayings of Gennadius about the little book of Faustus fit the praised Breviarium excellently. "I have read also his," he says, "small little book against the Arians and Macedonians, in which he proclaims the Trinity coessential." No one will be able in so few words to describe more aptly the Breviarium published by Sirmond. For it is in fact a small little book, in which first, after a brief preface, the equality of the Son with the Father against the Arians is clearly proved, and this disputation is concluded at page 100 thus: "Let these things, meanwhile, about the equality of the Father and the Son suffice for the present. For of the equality of the works of the Trinity, that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we shall show a little after, by the Lord's gift, from the holy Scriptures. But now, concerning the Deity of the Holy Spirit" (against the Macedonians), "a few out of many testimonies are to be set down." This disputation about the Deity of the Holy Spirit presently follows. And finally the Author heaps together briefly many things by which he shows that the same things are affirmed in the Scriptures of the Father, the same of the Son, the same of the Holy Spirit. The little book therefore has, in the same order in which Gennadius says, a dissertation against the Arians, another against the Macedonians, and a proclamation of the most holy Trinity through the equality of the three persons, so that it seems altogether to be recognized from the words of Gennadius.

[268] But from the style and genius of the Author it will become even more known to those and the style of Faustus, so that the said little book seems to be Faustus's. who can recognize the style of Faustus from an attentive reading of his Works. For the diction of Faustus, and his whole method of arguing, shine forth in that little book. He deals somewhat more briefly indeed, because he assails no one by name; but he adduces texts of sacred Scripture no less frequently, and overwhelms his adversaries with them, than in his other little Works. By the same arguments too he proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in this little book as in the Work just praised. The studious reader will find the same arguments too for the equality of the Son in various Homilies of Faustus as in this little Work. Again the same method of setting out the objections of adversaries and of answering them as in the other writings of Faustus recurs here; the same frequency of turning the discourse to the readers, of questioning the adversaries, and finally all those things which are familiar to Faustus above the rest you would find in that small little book. And so, since the time too at which the little book was written — namely while the Arian heresy was flourishing — fits Faustus also, I can scarcely doubt that that Breviarium published by Sirmond is the very little Work of Faustus read by Gennadius. But that his name was omitted in the codices we can wonder at less in the case of Faustus than of any other, since it is established that the same happened with very many of his Homilies.

§ XV. The Saint's exile: admonitions given to Felix and to Ruricius, whose supports he uses in exile.

[ ] Faustus, banished into exile about the year 481, At what time the praised little Works of Faustus against the Arians and Macedonians were written is not established. It is probable, however, that the first was written before the books On Grace and Free Will, since it is mentioned by Gennadius in the first place, but the other later, as being reckoned after them. But that reasoning is by no means certain, since Gennadius did not everywhere keep the order. But whatever be the case as to time, it is chiefly on account of those little Works that Faustus is believed to have been sent into exile by Euric, the Arian king of the Goths. If it is true that Faustus was banished by Euric, as is certainly highly probable, it could not have happened before Euric had at least in part occupied that region of Gaul which today we name Provence. But the time of the occupation of Provence by Euric labors under some difficulty on account of the varying testimonies of the ancients; but the opinion of Tillemont seems more probable, who in volume 6 of the Emperors, under Odoacer king of Italy, article 10, judges that Provence yielded to Euric after the death of the emperor Nepos, slain in Dalmatia in the year 480, on the ninth day of May. And so it is permissible to conjecture that Faustus was banished about the year 481. The death of Euric is fixed by Tillemont in the same place, article XI, in the year 484 as it was drawing to its close, and therefore he judges, in article 9 under Faustus, that in the same year 484 the Saint returned to his see.

[270] returned thence to his episcopate in the year 484 or later. Pagi, in his Critica, believes that Provence was subdued by Euric earlier, and therefore mentions the exile of Faustus at the year 477, number 21; of the time of his return he says nothing, but would have Euric live until the year 485. It does not please me to discuss at length a matter which cannot be established by solid arguments. Wherefore I say briefly that the beginning of the exile is probably fixed about the year 481; that the end must without doubt be fixed after the death of Euric, who would not have recalled Faustus: yet that it does not seem so certain that Faustus returned to his see immediately after the death of Euric. Tillemont says indeed that at almost the same time both Ruricius was raised to the episcopate of Limoges and Faustus returned to his own: but he does not prove that these things were done either in the year 484 or immediately after the death of Euric; nor do I find any argument for proving this with certainty. Wherefore I leave it doubtful whether Faustus returned to his see in the year 484 or a year or two later. But it is certain that he returned, since this is established from one of the Epistles to Ruricius, to be recited below. Of the place of his exile there is likewise no certainty. Pagi indeed, at the year 477, number 22, gathers from the Epistle to Ruricius that Faustus was banished into the diocese of Limoges, because Ruricius was bishop there, I suppose. But the Epistle does not have this, nor can it be gathered from the Epistle by sound dialectic. Nowhere either is it said where Ruricius dwelt before his episcopate. This one thing we shall see below, that Faustus was in some monastery.

[271] Now we shall give some things concerning the Epistles written in exile and afterwards, from which both what has been said about the exile will be confirmed, and at the same time it will become known how piously the Saint bore himself in exile. One of them is commemorated by Gennadius in these words: The Saint writes to Felix, whose benefits he was using in exile, "He wrote afterwards also to Felix, prefect of the praetorium and a man of patrician dignity, son of Magnus the consul, and now a religious, an Epistle exhortatory to the fear of God, suitable to persons disposing themselves to do penance with a full heart." The whole Epistle is found printed in volume 8 of the Lyons Library with this inscription: "To the most pious lord, and one to be honored with special services, as I trust for ever my brother, and in all things my lord, Felix, Faustus." The beginning, from which the beneficence of Felix toward the exiled Faustus becomes known, runs thus: "It is a great testimony of piety and of faith that through the vast intervals of so great regions, and through so many crises of affairs interposed, you extend the breadth of your charity even to us. In this banishment of ours the skillful mercy of God exercises a twofold office: it shakes off our rust with fatherly diligence, and it makes clear your faith toward us, and approves your piety. A kindly skill files us down, but brings you forward: it wholesomely straitens us, but enlarges you. We are arraigned, you make progress: our losses pass over into your advantages. Although you are our creditors, you begin to be our debtors, since indeed we are the cause of your devotion and the material of your reward. Your works take gain from us, your merits borrow increase from our scourgings. The affection of your solicitude reaches us, its fruit reaches God. And thus in a twofold manner, both by our chastisement and by your repayment, we are bound to the divine benefits."

[272] From the words alleged we have, first, that Faustus was banished far away, and who was asking for his instruction, since Felix was at Arles with Leontius the bishop, as follows presently concerning Leontius. Secondly we understand the humble piety of Faustus, who counts his exile a divine benefit, by which he humbly says that the rust of his soul is being wiped away; and counts it another benefit that on that occasion others gain by their benefits with God. Presently Faustus hints that Felix, who was being trained in piety by Leontius, had asked for his instruction also, "whose singular affection toward you," he says, "you know." Whence we have it that friendship flourished between him and Felix already before the exile of Faustus. He adds that that instruction is asked superfluously, and, speaking humbly of himself, he indicates also an illness in these words: "You believe that my teaching is as perfect for the help of your faith as your wish is: but, although my discourse (which my present infirmity renders yet slower) can scarcely suffice for your ardor, nevertheless in a few words I shall not so much instruct your manner of life as review it." Then he suggests some admonitions concerning prayer, concerning reading, concerning moderating the frequency of those who pay their respects, concerning fasts, concerning the use of garments, concerning the avoidance of pride, all which may be seen in the same place.

[273] After these things the following are read: "There is another kind of abstinence far more sublime he writes pious admonitions, and far more precious: to rule the motions of the mind, to subjugate to the command of the mind the irrational disturbances and the rebellious tumults of thoughts wrestling among themselves, to spit out the poison of malice, like some deadly sorcery, from the inner chambers of the heart, and to govern the soul against the waves of divers temptations by the guidance of constancy, and against hidden passions, as against domestic enemies, to join a certain quarrel by the authority of an angered faith; to drive far away empty cares, and to abstain from harmful conversations and desires on which the devil feeds; and through meekness, patience, tranquility to cultivate in the outward countenance the (add: image) of God, a man thinking spiritual and divine things, so that sadness may not break him, gladness may not unstring him,

and an evenness of magnanimity may show a breast established in the fear of God, so that there may be able to be fitted to us that notable beginning of that little book: 'There was one man, abstaining from every evil thing.' 'One man,' he says, that is, always the same, because there was in him nothing doubtful, nothing double, nothing accidental, nothing changeable or diverse: but the times did not change him as he remained in the state of his virtues with an even order, nor did the diverse blasts of the winds (as is the way with the greatest waves) turn him to alternate sides. So too let the careful servant of God, founded on the unshaken mass of faith, be changed in this only (with Christ working in him), that he may always be clothed with new virtues. Before all things, so far as by God's help we can, let us storm in ourselves those allurements of the five senses. For whatever grows fair to the sight, whatever entices by smell, whatever softens by touch, whatever grows sweet to the taste, whatever flatters the hearing — all these things, if we misuse them, roll down the intention from spiritual things to earthly."

[274] composed in an elegant and learned discourse. I have given this passage so that the Latin reader may perceive what the sentiments of Faustus are, and in how polished a discourse he expresses them. For thus, I think, he will the more believe St. Sidonius, who attributes to Faustus not only subtlety and force in arguing, but also no small elegance in speaking, than certain modern Frenchmen who would have it that there was nothing of eloquence, nothing of singular erudition in Faustus. I see that several moderns who have written in the vernacular tongue believed Tillemont when he asserted this. But I judge altogether that credit is rather to be given to Sidonius, who, since he was himself most eloquent, was the best judge of the eloquence of his own age. But to vernacular writers, who have never published anything in Latin, I give no credit concerning Latin eloquence, especially since they contradict a most eloquent man, and since the very writings of Faustus clearly confirm his judgment. He concludes the Epistle in these words: "For the soul will have to do violence to itself, that it may subject carnal affections to the spirit, that it may prefer the cross to delights, that it may set vigils before sweet sleep, that it may conquer the adversary in its own members, that, made another man out of one, it may be found fit for that precept of the Lord: 'If any man,' He says, 'will come after me, let him deny himself to himself.' If anyone shall be made patient out of irascible, continent out of luxurious, placid out of bloodthirsty, kindly out of envious, generous out of covetous: so often do we deny ourselves as often as we turn ourselves to better things. And therefore, that we may rise up to what we ought to be, let us first be zealous to hate what we have been. He must first be changed here unto life who wishes to be changed there unto glory." So much concerning Felix, of whom I find nothing more to our purpose.

[275] Ruricius, making very much of Faustus, Ruricius sought the instructions of Faustus by letters, of which two have come down to us, but more of Faustus to Ruricius. The first of Ruricius is printed in volume 8 of the said Library, page 559, with this inscription: "To his own special lord in Christ, his lord patron, Faustus the bishop, Ruricius." And Ruricius, not yet a bishop, begins thus: "Long since, my lord, venerable and most blessed Priest, did I come to know you, as a most celebrated report proclaimed you. Long since, the longing of a pious love having been poured in, do I behold you with those eyes of the heart to which you deign to write: but nonetheless I hasten to see you with bodily eyes also; if in any way I may be able, with your intercession, to break asunder the chains of my sins, and, having received the wings of that dove, to fly away from the snares of the hunters; and, placed with you, to rest in the law of the Lord, so that the thirst which I conceived by reading your little Works I might quench by drinking more abundantly, with him present from whom they flowed; so that the little fire of charity which you have kindled among the fervent[*] embers of my sleeping soul a living flame might strengthen, food having been brought forth from the thicket of the Scriptures — which flame, kindled by the utterance of a holy mouth, would in its wonted way put forth in the breast of a sinner the force of a powerful nature, by warming what is cold, by lighting what is dark, and by consuming the thorns of crimes. My soul has clung after you, excellent Teacher." All these things make manifest how much Ruricius made of Faustus. One might also think from the beginning that this is the first Epistle of Ruricius to Faustus, as it is the first printed; but I rather believe that another went before, which follows in the same place.

[276] For Ruricius, in the Epistle partly related, where he had said, ardently seeks his instructions too, "For our littleness is not yet able to drive out the fear of a guilty condition, and to unlock cleansed hearts to a perfect charity, so that, leaving present things, we may seek eternal ones, and, the handmaid being cast out, we as free men may be able to obtain the paternal inheritance," presently subjoins: "Wherefore I hope, my Lord, that you will pray for me unceasingly, and that as often as you shall have deigned to pour the rain of your eloquence upon the dryness of my ground, you will supply me not, as you have done now, being still unaware of my infirmity, with delicate and sweet foods, but with more austere ones and suited to my sickness." And below: "Indeed let your Holiness not fear that to my wounds the right hand of one who soothes may be more welcome than that of one who cuts, because I already feel, by the Lord's gift, both that I cannot be healed by that and that I have grievously festered. And therefore I choose that the just man should rebuke me with the reproach of mercy, rather than that the oil of the sinner should fatten my head. With suppliant prayer therefore I beg that, out of that treasure of your inner chambers, whence you have been wont to bring forth things new and old, as most skilled physicians who daily heal the innumerable and various sicknesses of the languishing with the help of God's grace, you would send to my languor also those medicines which you know to be fitting." These things openly make manifest that a letter of Faustus had already been brought to Ruricius, after he had begun to declare his past life to Faustus.

[277] But that Ruricius did this by some writing, and wholly submits himself to his cure. sent along with the Epistle published in the second place, or generally by the Epistle itself, seems to be gathered from that very Epistle. For he begins it thus: "So far have an impious negligence and a negligent impiety possessed me hitherto, that I do not know, my Lord, what chiefly to accuse in myself; and I do not find what first to excuse in myself." Then, when he had shown that no excuse is to be sought, he thus offers himself to Faustus: "You have therefore, best Father, excellent Pastor, my spontaneous confession of my own fault: you have both in a disciple's error what you may correct, and in a little sheep's languor what you may heal; and it is of your power and judgment whether you wish to cut back the putrefaction of my sore with the hardness of iron, or to cure it with the gentleness of medicines. But I, whichever cure you shall have chosen, will embrace it undismayed, nor shall I turn aside from the stroke of a father's right hand, provided that I obtain my portion of the promised inheritance." After various things concerning the mercy of God toward sinners, he thus concludes the Epistle: "Give help to sinners, grant remission to those who strive, bestow your intercession, and to a confessing son not only yourself grant pardon, but pray for pardon, so that him whom you call free in a foreign land you may be able to see set free in his own: and that he who through himself lost the Lord's bounty may through you deserve to obtain liberty, and that he who is set apart from the reward may not be separated from your consolation."

[278] Of the five Epistles of Faustus to Ruricius this is the first. Tillemont, article 9, so expounded this Epistle as if Ruricius were only asking pardon for some negligence committed toward Faustus. But almost everything hints that it is a question of sins committed against God, whether Ruricius had set these out in a separate writing, or had only accused in general the negligence of his past life. What Faustus answered we shall presently see. But before he wrote this, Ruricius had already received some Epistle of Faustus, as the words indicate, "him whom… you call free." But this seems to have perished. There are extant, however, five Epistles of Faustus to Ruricius. Of these the first is at page 554, in which Faustus answers a consultation of Ruricius, who had sent one of his household to him with a letter. The beginning is this: "Although through whatever person it is pleasant to me to converse with an undivided heart in the very voices of charity, and to embrace you with a diligent zeal of services; yet now, the more opportunely, the more eagerly have I taken up the pledge of your mind by the ministry of a household bearer, concerning whose merit the report assigned less than acquaintance has proved." He goes on to praise that servant, and others perhaps sent with him by Ruricius.

[279] in which he answers his consultation: At the end he answers the consultation, proposed as it were on behalf of another, as to what is better: to invest, or to administer, or to sell off one's own portion. And he answers: "First it would truly be good that the servant of Christ, wholly poor, should be zealous to walk in the ways of the poor Christ, if it were permitted to seek out the perfect school of some great monastery, or at any rate an island, the warfare of an angelic congregation. For to profess an eremitic institution in the midst of the world is as difficult as it is magnanimous." Secondly he says that the administration can be committed to a son, if there be one fit for it; or to another administrator: but the passage is corrupt. Thirdly he says that part of the goods can be administered by faithful servants. "In which order," he says, "there is no small gain, if, the use being reserved, the ownership be sold off." Then he subjoins: "And so, briefly indicating what is first, what second, and what third, we have reserved the choice to the judgment or the ability of the one consulting. What is more suitable, what he can more readily fulfill, let Him deign to hint, for whose fear and love this very counsel[*] is handled," and so forth.

[280] This, I think, is the first Epistle of Faustus to Ruricius, the second, in which, to his Epistle commonly reckoned second, and perhaps others followed which have perished. But the one which is found in the third place seems to have been returned to that Epistle of Ruricius in which he much accuses himself and hands himself into the hands of Faustus. For Faustus writes back thus: "Thanks to the Lord, who has by a general dispensation granted this, that among those whom intervals of place divide, the mind may travel free and shut in by no laws of absence, and that nothing should be so impenetrable as not to lie open to the sight of the mind, but that through the gaze of the heart dear ones might behold each other in turn, with grace running between, there where charity itself abides. For our inner man too has his own eyes, by which the witness of conscience looks into himself; by which, turned upon himself, he may consider things to blush at or to rejoice over; by which he sees through to the last day; by which, with a foresight thinking of the future, he sets out before the face of his own soul the history of his whole life, whether shameful or, by God's gift, praiseworthy, and brings into the presence of a trembling solicitude the time of rendering an account; and paints, with hope forming the image, upon the secret page of his own breast the things which God has prepared for those who love Him. Which eyes, as I think, you too always raise to the throne of the dread Judge, so that of you that saying of the Prophet may deservedly be spoken: 'The eyes of a wise man are in his head.'" By these things he sweetly exhorts him to examine his conscience, and to call to mind the last things of men, so that by that consideration he may be deterred from sins.

[281] But since he preferred to use the gentleness of medicines sweetly exhorting him to more perfect things, and mingling praises: rather than the hardness of iron, which Ruricius had left free to him, he mentions also his true praises, that he may meanwhile be strengthened in what he has well begun and

may grow, until he should be called by God to more perfect things. And so, after a corrupt passage, these things follow: "Thence it is, I say, that the supports of present things which must be left behind you commit, like an eager money-lender, through the ransoms of captives into the bosom of the Rewarder, after the manner of one who sows; that you make ownership out of use, and turn things that will perish into everlasting treasures. Thence it is that, with your most faithful Sarah,[*] tending under the one yoke of Christ toward a common crown, a despiser of earthly things and a competitor for heavenly ones, a pilgrim of the world and a candidate of paradise, you as a secret soldier of Christ mock this world, which now has nothing whereby it may deceive or seduce; and that with the partner of an unending kingdom you knock, by fastings and prayers and by a certain hand of faith, at the door of life in a pious conspiracy, that you may take a double palm from your mutual salvation. But amid these things whatever is done is too little: that incurable cases may here be cured, that inextinguishable fire may here be extinguished, that necessities not to be struggled against may here be overcome, that here the arrows of sins may be plucked from the inmost parts of the soul, that here wounds impressed deep in the very marrow may be healed, that here invisible stains may be washed away, that here eternal joys may be procured by the labor of faithful endeavors. There indeed life will be the reward of this; but it is fitting that this be the price of that."

[282] If anyone shall attentively consider these things, and at the same time the occasion on which they were written, each written before the exile. he will perceive that it is an exhortation no less powerful than sweet to laying hold of more perfect things. He concludes the Epistle thus: "My services therefore being first offered, I ask that, when opportunity shall have presented itself, you would make us rejoice in your health and your own well-being. For my sons and deacons I return abundant thanks. My lady daughter, the mirror of religion and the example of piety, I greet, having venerated her with due honor. The Lord our God both fill your goodness, which I must magnify, with present goods, and render it worthy of eternal ones, most bound lord and son to be specially honored with a chief honor." That lady whom he praises and greets was without doubt the wife of Ruricius. The deacons, for whom he gives thanks, had in all likelihood been with Ruricius, or at any rate on another occasion had been favored by him with benefits. The two Epistles of Faustus already related seem to have been written before his exile, since in them he made no mention of exile, and for that cause they can be fixed about the year 480.

[283] I do not doubt that Ruricius answered this Epistle by his own, commonly reckoned the first, Then, to the other Epistle of Ruricius, commonly the first, in which these things are read: "Long since, the longing of a pious love having been poured in, do I behold you with those eyes of the heart to which" (read: of which) "you deign to write." For concerning the inner eyes Faustus had written in that one. Sweetly too, and by mingling praises, as we have seen, he had exhorted him. Hence Ruricius there says: "You will supply me not, as you have done now,… with delicate and sweet foods, but with more austere ones and suited to my sickness." In the same Epistle Ruricius shows some desire of the monastic life in these words: "But let your prayers help me, that I may be able, having spurned earthly acts, to gape after heavenly ones, because the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul, so that it cannot incline its ear to the divine oracles, so that in obedient forgetfulness it may (leave) its father's house, and depart at the command of Him who calls from its own land and kindred, and rather desire that land which is shown to it."

[284] he answers by the third, written in exile, which he bears piously, To that Epistle of Ruricius, Faustus answered in exile by his third Epistle, printed in the second place, from which it is clear that the Exile lived in some monastery. Ruricius, whom in the earlier ones he had called son, in this one he begins to call brother, in all likelihood because he had bidden farewell to the world. But of his exile he begins thus: "Set, by a favorable Divinity, in a fitting secret place of religion and in a most tranquil silence, in which the Lord has applied the file of a saving chastisement to the rust contracted by a long freedom from care" (I believe it should be read "applied the file"). "In this, I say, we who have been granted a great calling too, if we recognize it, while we acquire new citizens by the commerce of charity, while we rejoice over the salvation of those acquired — placed amid these goods, we mock the present exile, and recognize that we have not lost a fatherland,[*] but exchanged it. For while the faithful servants of God exercise the goodness of their devotion in our necessities, we are possessors without a seat of our own, rich without a possession: nay, we enrich those who take fruit from our consolation. In a wondrous manner our consolers do business out of poor little men, and obtain perpetual gains out of the needy." These things Faustus says very piously, praising God in all things.

[285] Tillemont carping in vain, Tillemont, however, exercised his critique here in article 9. For he says that those things which are said about the gain of those who served Faustus could better have been said by them themselves than by Faustus. I do not wonder at an observation, however ridiculous: for he everywhere pursues Faustus with a hostile pen. But I require a sound judgment. For they would have been praising and making much of their own works, which little suits Christian humility. But Faustus was praising the deeds of others, and judging that they should be rewarded with an abundant recompense, which entirely befits Christian charity: and thus both in his own affliction and in their gain from the services of charity he found a most apt material for praising God, as everyone will always find it who loves God with all his strength along with Faustus.

[286] he began to admonish more openly one who so wished it, Let us return to the Epistle of Faustus, who goes on praising God: "But I have received this first bounty, by the Lord's granting, that my most pious Ruricius, after the tossings of this life, has turned the prow of salvation to the harbor of religion, with the hand of the Most High guiding; that after the shadows of seducing vanities and the mockeries of fleeting dreams he has desired things abiding and solid, and, the unhappy world being at last despised, has snatched away its great art, and has by a faithful art acquired his own happiness and gain out of a perishing world, and, passing by in flight from collapsing things, has by his contempt of them conferred riches which by his use of them could confer nothing. Whence, with as great alacrity as we once served in worldly pursuits, let us now with as great devotion serve the Lord. And since your piety constrains me to speak more austerely with you for the cure of sins, and does not observe the odium of that judgment which says, 'The just man is his own accuser at the beginning': in the first place therefore let us avoid the slips of mouth and of heart. But as to what we have said of the mouth, if you shall be zealous to set a guard upon the heart, you will not labor to impose discipline upon the mouth; without difficulty you will be able to set a door of circumspection before your lips. For that indeed is uttered by the voice which is first shaped in the workshop of conscience. The outer man renders what the inner dictates. The mind exercises command, the tongue service. And therefore we are taught by heavenly discourses: 'Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.' What seems to be born of speech is first conceived in thought. That the sound of the mouth may not bring forth unworthy things, let the mind command just ones.

[287] "And since there are two kinds of fastings, one to restrain the appetite of incontinence from the ill-flattering sweetnesses of delights, and repeats some things written also to Felix. so that the outer and earthly man, subdued by the plowshare of the cross, may wither in an advantageous infirmity. The other kind of abstinence is far more sublime, far more precious, which no infirmity can gainsay," and so forth. He says here many things about subduing the affections of the mind: but I pass these over, because almost the same were given at number 273 from the Epistle to Felix. I pass over the rest too for brevity's sake. But I observe briefly that on account of that repetition, and of a few others, Tillemont judged that the vein of Faustus was barren, because he frequently repeated his own things. But his writings show the contrary: and few are found who do not sometimes repeat what they have well devised.

[288] Several Epistles given to Ruricius in exile have in all likelihood perished. The fourth, after the exile, to Ruricius the bishop, The first after the exile, which was printed in the last place, was written to Ruricius as bishop. Since it is brief, I bring over almost the whole of it here: "It is more welcome to write to you about a fatherland, who made a fatherland for us in our pilgrimage, who by an untiring liberality tempered our longings for a fatherland — bringing a certain force upon the divine justice by benefits succeeding one another, so that what it had brought for chastisement it might turn to honor, might contribute to consolation, might change into rest of mind; that it might pass over our debts in order to heap up yours, forgetting what was owed and multiplying your gains; exercising toward both parties the greatness of its own goodness, (so that) it might enrich us by your service, and enrich you by our exile. Whence it came about that already in the present it dispensed, impatient of things to come, a blessing, and exalted its most faithful servant upon the candlestick of its house, with mercy, justice, sincerity, continence, and kindness — that is, his household supporters — cooperating.

[289] "Behold at what a price my Ruricius has procured the highest priesthood. Whence he bought, to whom he offers congratulations on that dignity: then the fifth. that very thing is what he bought: and, with his own witnesses acclaiming, he displayed in himself the causes of honor, the refuges of honor. So great a gift therefore he knows how to guard in the name of Christ, who knew how to acquire it. But the bearer of this letter, the holy presbyter Florentius, long since known to me, and adorned both with the examples of his master and with the flowers of good character, who travels abroad for the release of his own sister, I commend to you." That sister was perhaps a captive among the Goths. The last Epistle of Faustus to Ruricius was printed before this one. It was written to commend to Ruricius the bearer of the Epistle itself, who had been a captive, and was laboring to rescue his wife and children from slavery. It is probable that Faustus himself also contributed not a little to those pious works of mercy, but that the revenue of the church of Riez did not suffice for everything.

. Perhaps ferventius*.

. consultatio*, I think.

*. That is, his wife.

. Read patriam*.

§ XVI. The year of his death is uncertain, as is his age, but it was certainly a great old age: the Homilies published under the name of Eusebius of Gaul are not all Faustus's, but many of them are, and several others.

[ ] The year of his death is uncertain: it is not proved that he lived Of the deeds of St. Faustus after his return from exile we find nothing except the two Epistles to Ruricius already mentioned. Nevertheless, from the Catalogue of Writers of Gennadius, which was written about the year 493, Tillemont, article 9, suspects that Faustus was living while Gennadius was writing. The words of Gennadius from which he gathers this are these: "There are also other writings of his which, because I have not yet read them, I have been unwilling to name; nevertheless by the living voice he is both believed and proved an excellent teacher." The last words gave Tillemont that suspicion, who added also another reason, namely that Gennadius does not speak of his death, whereas of others he says under what emperor they died. Neither reason seems to me to press much: for of the death of many others who most certainly had died Gennadius said nothing, nor did he name the emperor under whom they had died, as anyone will see, if only he consult his Catalogue from beginning to end. Faustus died after the empire in the West was extinguished, and while the Goths were ruling in Provence. And so these

could be the reason for not naming the prince under whom he died — if indeed a reason is to be sought, for concerning several others he omits the same without any reason known to us, as he omits the death itself. Those who immediately precede Faustus in the Catalogue are Claudianus Mamertus and Prosper, both dead long before the year 493, and yet their death is not mentioned. And so that reason at least is of no weight.

[291] down to the time at which Gennadius wrote, The other reason too, from those words, "nevertheless by the living voice he is both believed and proved an excellent teacher," would prove too much, if it proved anything. For if those words prove that Faustus was living at that time, they also prove that he was teaching by the living voice, which of a man who must then have been almost a hundred years old is not very probable. Wherefore it seems to me more probable that Faustus had died earlier, both because his deeds have become known only for a year or two after his return from exile, and because Gennadius is silent about his life. For concerning those whom he knew to be living he expressed this much more often than he took care to report the death of all, as in chapter 69 concerning Salvian, then concerning certain others, and by name concerning the three last, so that I find no one in the Catalogue whom I know to have lived at that time in Gaul concerning whom he omits it. That reason has some force in my judgment. Concerning all whom he knew to be living Gennadius observed this. But he could not easily be ignorant of the life of Faustus, as living in the same province, and yet he did not indicate that he was living. Faustus therefore had died, like Claudianus, Prosper, and nearly half of the others concerning whom he omits it. But those words, "nevertheless by the living voice he is both believed and proved an excellent teacher," I think are to be understood of the common voice of the living, by which the doctrine of Faustus was everywhere celebrated: for he says that he has omitted some of his writings, because he had not read them, but that Faustus is nevertheless celebrated by the living voice of men as an excellent teacher.

[292] If anyone should wish to contend that it is a question of the living voice of Faustus preaching, but he rather seems to have died before the year 490: as Tillemont in article 3 seems to have understood the passage, the words are to be referred to the past time in which Faustus was preaching. If anyone should wish that Faustus was living, because Gennadius says in the present tense "is believed and proved," as Tillemont wished, again the argument will not hold. For Gennadius in chapter 93 speaks in the same way of Sidonius, long since dead: "But," he says, "strong in Christian vigor, even amid the harshness of barbarian ferocity which at that time oppressed the Gauls, he is held a Catholic father and a distinguished teacher." Wherefore the arguments produced by Tillemont for prolonging the life of Faustus to the year 493 prove nothing at all; and since there is deep silence about Faustus after his Epistles to Ruricius, which could have been written in the year 485 or not long after, I rather believe that Faustus did not reach the year 490, and therefore I have fixed his death with some latitude after the year 484, yet in the fifth century.

[293] The praised Tillemont says of the great old age of Faustus: perhaps at an age of about ninety years. "Wherefore he can easily have fulfilled the prophecy of St. Sidonius, who had promised him that he would surpass the age of a hundred years." The passage of Sidonius I gave at number 243, and there I observed that Sidonius made pious prayers for a long life for Faustus, and hinted a hope of its being prolonged to a hundred years and beyond. Like prayers can be made for someone who has not yet reached old age, so that from the passage of Sidonius nothing is had for attributing a hundred or even ninety years to Faustus. Tillemont adds for proof: "For since he was made abbot of Lérins in the year 433, it is necessary that he was born a little after the year 390." This reason certainly shows that Faustus was long-lived; but it by no means proves the whole of what the author intends. For the outstanding virtue of Faustus, and his singular learning and eloquence, could have brought it about that at an age not far advanced he was promoted to the rule of the abbey, and thus perhaps he was born rather about 400 than about 390. Certainly neither in the writings nor in the deeds of Faustus do I find any other indications of so great an age as to think him born not long after the year 390. For thus he would have been more than eighty when he wrote On Grace and Free Will; but in the Preface to Leontius he complains indeed that that labor was laid on weak shoulders, but adds nothing about heavy old age, as a Man of eighty years or more, which he would have had according to Tillemont's epoch, could deservedly have done. In his other writings too he never speaks of his great age, never complains of the troubles of a decrepit old age. Wherefore I should prefer to believe that Faustus was not far from the age of ninety years when he died, than that he reached a hundred years, or even came near it. But of these things we can give probabilities; we do not have certainties.

[294] Gennadius, by the words given at number 290, testifies that there were other writings of St. Faustus which he did not mention and did not read. The Collection of Homilies first attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, Of these I have reviewed none except the Epistles to Ruricius, which he could have hinted at by those words. Gennadius, however, chiefly, I think, designated the Homilies delivered before an assembly. For that Faustus was excellent in the office of preaching, and that his Sermons were learned and useful, Sidonius, praised at number 29, testifies. Learned moderns too by no means doubt that we still have several Homilies of Faustus printed under others' names, since some can be claimed for him by certain arguments, and in others his style is recognized; they differ much, however, about the number, some attributing more, others fewer to Faustus. In the Lyons Library, volume 6, from page 618, there is printed an ample collection of Homilies, to which this title is prefixed: "The most eloquent and most religious Homilies of Eusebius, bishop of Gaul, to the people and to monks, first brought to light by Jean de Gagny, theologian of Paris, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, revised by Andreas Schott of the Society of Jesus and enriched with Sermons." Then there is subjoined the preface of Gagny, who attributes the Homilies published by him to Eusebius of Emesa, a Greek writer of the fourth century. But learned men quickly saw that those Homilies are certainly not Eusebius of Emesa's, since they are without doubt those of a Latin writer.

[295] then to others, and reprinted under the name of Eusebius of Gaul, Hence Schott gave another preface, printed likewise in the same place, in which he reviews various opinions about the author of the aforesaid Homilies, to which he himself added others, printed in the same place from page 675 to 686. He proves first that those Homilies are not Eusebius of Emesa's, which is most certain and is now, I think, admitted by all. Then he teaches that by some they are attributed to St. Caesarius of Arles, by others a great part of them to St. Hilary, likewise bishop of Arles; that they were first claimed by Baronius for St. Eucherius of Lyons, then ascribed to Eusebius, a bishop of Gaul, who is not yet known. Under his name, however, they have been published in the Lyons Library, but wrongly, since that Eusebius was only substituted for the one of Emesa without legitimate reason. Finally he observes that one of those Homilies, namely the fourth On Easter, is certainly St. Maximus of Riez's; that others are found among the Homilies of St. Caesarius; that one is attributed in a manuscript to St. Isidore, and another is certainly St. Faustus of Riez's. Tillemont, in Note 2 on Faustus, acknowledges that many of the said Homilies are attributed to Faustus, and the most recent authors on writers have followed him, yet they enumerate only a few which they believe without doubt to be Faustus's.

[296] by Oudin the whole is attributed to Faustus. His first argument But Oudin, in the Commentary on Writers, volume 1, in two places contends that all are to be attributed to Faustus, and adduces many arguments, which I shall briefly discuss. But since he praises another collection of Homilies which I have not seen, I have compared the collection printed in the Lyons Library with our own manuscript codex, a very ancient one, from which Schott enlarged the Collection of Gagny, and on which at the beginning he noted some things. Oudin takes his first argument, at column [ ], from Homily XII To Monks, "which," he says, "in our Collection and edition is the LXXIVth." But that Homily is not found in our codex already praised, which Schott used, but there there are only ten Homilies To Monks, as they have been published. The same ten Homilies, separated from all the rest, we have in another manuscript codex, marked ✠ Ms. 107, in which they are attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, whose name in the earlier codex is prefixed to only one Homily, that On the Litanies. And so that very Homily which Oudin praises does not seem to belong to the Collection which, on the strength of it, he wishes to ascribe wholly to Faustus. Besides, I would dare to assert without doubt that it is not Faustus's. For among the 40 Homilies of St. Caesarius of Arles it is placed as the twentieth, and the style of St. Faustus does not shine forth in that Homily.

[297] from a Homily which is not Faustus's, is plainly no argument at all, The argument which he brings forward to claim it for Faustus is plainly none. Sidonius, in the Poem in which he celebrates Faustus, has these words about Lérins and about Faustus as bishop:

Showing to the brethren how many mountains that level island Has sent to heaven, and so forth.

In the praised Homily too there is read: "Blessed, I say, and happy is the island, which, though it may seem small and level, is nevertheless known to have sent innumerable mountains to heaven." Oudin doubtless believed that Sidonius set down this opposition between the level island and the mountains because Faustus had set it down first, and he made so much of that fancy that he says: "Than which nothing stronger can ever be given for adjudging this Collection demonstratively to Faustus." But it certainly can be of no profit for a Collection to which that Homily does not belong. But as regards the Homily itself, its author, whether he was St. Caesarius or any other man brought up earlier at Lérins, imitated the words of Sidonius and adopted his invention. In vain does Oudin wish that Sidonius drew from the Homily: he had no need of another's invention, nor is that conception so singular that it could not have been devised by a most fertile wit. But the beginning of the Homily is of such a kind as to fit no one less than Faustus. He could not, before monks whom for perhaps twenty years he had frequently gathered for a sermon, call himself most unskilled for exhorting them, as he does at the beginning. He could not prudently say, "Where shall I be able to find what I may set before you who hunger for justice?" since he had very frequently addressed them, and went on always preaching in his own church. To say it in a word, the whole subject matter of the Homily does not suit Faustus, just as its diction does not accord with the style of Faustus. The mere "humble and elegant hint,… if we believe Oudin, betrayed Faustus as the parent of that Work." But that in my judgment alone suffices for judging the Homily not to be Faustus's; since it does not fit one who had so long held the headship of those monks, and had most frequently taught them.

[298] Oudin draws his second argument from Homily 3 On the Dedication of a Church, in the Lyons Library, page 677, just as the rest of his arguments are inept, and from two others preceding on the same subject. These he would have to contain something of forensic learning, that is, of civil law, which Sidonius attributes to Faustus in the words given at number 51. But that observation again seems to me useless: for those things which Oudin alleges as proper to civil law are not so singular that like things could not have been brought forth from the Gospel itself by a man in any degree learned. And so this reason does not compel us to attribute those Homilies to Faustus. I shall not deny, however, that the style of Faustus is in some fashion detected in the third, but less so in the first and second. And so I suspect that that third is really Faustus's. But whether that one is Faustus's, or the second and first as well, it is not permissible to infer from this that they are all of the same writer, which Oudin contends without any legitimate reason. Hence his third argument does not hold, by which he strives to infer that they are all Faustus's from one Homily on St. Maximus, printed at page 654, which is really Faustus's. The fourth argument labors under the same fault, by which from the Homilies To Monks, which are Faustus's, he infers that the whole Collection is his. The fifth argument is no better. He says that those Homilies are infected with the Semipelagian heresy, and consequently are Faustus's. But he proves neither.

[299] Sixthly he observes that in those Homilies there are found expressions proper to Faustus, for all are drawn from particular Homilies, such as "But you say," "It is not so," "Not so is it," "But it is not so." But these words are found in some, not in all: and therefore it is inept to ascribe them all to Faustus on this account, since many are foreign to his style. He takes his seventh argument from several repetitions which have been found in the said Homilies. But these are not many, nor was Faustus the only one who repeated some things from time to time. Eighthly and finally he observes that in several codices the name of Faustus is still found before two, three, or four Homilies, which I willingly acknowledge: but neither this argument, nor any brought forward by Oudin, avails for attributing that whole Collection of Homilies to Faustus, since all of them by a manifest fault of reasoning proceed from several particular Homilies to the universal collection.

[300] and it is gratuitously imagined that the whole Collection is his, Oudin contends altogether gratuitously that the whole Collection is of the same writer, since neither does the style favor this suspicion, and to several Homilies particular authors are assigned in the manuscripts. The fourth On Easter is inscribed at page 635 "Sermon IV of blessed Maximus, bishop of Riez"; nor is there any reason why we should judge that sermon not to be St. Maximus's and attribute it to St. Faustus, since the diction of the latter cannot be detected in it by any indication. The following Homily V is written in some manuscript as St. Isidore's, and is elsewhere cited as Eusebius of Emesa's. The Homily On the Litanies, page 645, is read in the margin as ascribed by name to Eusebius of Emesa in a manuscript, as in our codex too this one alone is marked with that title. None could be attributed to Eusebius of Emesa more incongruously than this very one delivered on the Litanies, since the Litanies or Rogations were instituted in Gaul when he had been dead for almost a whole century in the East. And so by this specimen we understand how little we can trust the present-day titles of manuscript codices — certainly of those codices which contain many things heaped together from every quarter.

[301] [since in the manuscripts too they are attributed to different men, and the style is various.] Homily 2 On the Ascension, page 648, as is noted in the margin, was once among the Sermons ascribed to St. Augustine: it exhibits, however, the style and method of Faustus more than that of Augustine. Of the ten Homilies To Monks, four, truly or falsely, are attributed to St. Caesarius. The Sermon On St. Romanus the martyr, page 671, is called in our manuscript "A Sermon of St. Faustinus on St. Romanus the martyr." Thus the exhortatory Sermon, page 679, is called "of the holy bishop Faustinus," in our codex also. From what has been said it is easily understood that that whole Collection seems to be not of one writer, but of different ones. Oudin contends that not only this Collection, but also Homilies gathered by him from elsewhere — "92 in number," he says, "procured from here and there" — should be attributed to Faustus, because some of them are his. But this is not to reason, but to contend without reason. For he could indeed have found some other Homilies of Faustus: but that they are Faustus's must be proved by other arguments. The very variety of the style shows that they are not all of the same author.

[302] The Homilies of Faustus are reviewed in the order of that Collection: Tillemont, in Note 2 on Faustus, following the Benedictine editors of the Works of St. Augustine; the Benedictines in the Literary History, volume 2, page 605; and Ceillier, volume 15, page 185, observe more correctly that many Homilies of that Collection seem to be ascribed to Faustus, but not all. They also assign several by name, but few out of many, because for the greater number no other arguments can be had than a judgment from the style, which is frequently ambiguous. Ceillier enumerates some in the order in which they were printed. The first two, both On the Nativity of the Lord, he attributes to Faustus. In the first not only does the diction of Faustus shine forth, but there are also found expressions familiar and proper to him, so that about this one there seems to be no doubt. The second too exhibits in some fashion the style of Faustus; it lacks, however, expressions proper to him, so that this is believed to be Faustus's probably indeed, but less certainly. Then he passes over four others, and attributes to Faustus the fourth On the Epiphany. But I have considered the four passed over — namely one on St. Stephen the martyr, and the three earlier ones on the Epiphany — and have compared the said fourth on the Epiphany with them, and I find no difference in style: all are worthy of Faustus, all are, as I think, of the same author as the second on the Nativity. All these therefore we shall probably believe to be Faustus's.

[303] I see, however, why that fourth on the Epiphany seems to have been attributed to Faustus by some. Its author asks in one he is undeservedly carped at. whence there was so great strength in the Maccabean martyrs amid torments, and answers: "And what other cause, dearly beloved, save first of all divine grace, which, when it has found the desire of our infirmity, at once supplies help?" Tillemont, in Note 2, says that these things savor of the doctrine of Faustus, hinting, I think, the Semipelagian doctrine. But by this critique Tillemont, who perhaps took up theological studies for a few months, would make the sacred Scriptures themselves Semipelagian. For it is not here a question of the first grace, which is so freely given that it is not even obtained by prayers but is pressed upon us of God's own accord. But it is a question of the grace of fortitude in torments, which he hints was obtained by the Maccabees by prayers and vows. But what is said more frequently in the Scriptures than that God is at hand to those who call upon Him? If our prayers do nothing toward obtaining divine grace, why do we so often say, "O God, come to my help; O Lord, make haste to help me"? The Homily On the Beginning of Lent, printed at page 627, we can no less attribute to Faustus, since in it the same style and the same spirit shine forth as in the preceding ones. There follow two Homilies On the Creed, which Ceillier also attributes to Faustus, because in them there are many things similar to his books On the Holy Spirit. The style too confirms these for Faustus.

[304] After the ten Homilies already reviewed, at page 632 there follows another On St. Blandina of Lyons, The Homily on St. Blandina is not his, nor is the first nor the fourth, which is judged not to be Faustus's in the Literary History, page 606, because it was not only delivered at Lyons but also by an author who was either bishop or presbyter of the church of Lyons, as he indicates in various places. There is added some difference of style. For the style, if not better, at any rate the diction is somewhat grander, and less sprinkled with moral doctrine and with texts of sacred Scripture, than all the writings of Faustus everywhere are. There follow eleven Homilies On Easter, of which Ceillier attributes the sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh to Faustus. The first of them does not seem to me to be Faustus's either, because it is a brief declamation without much doctrine. But the second and third present the character of Faustus and his diligence in teaching, so that I judge these are probably to be attributed to him. On the contrary, the fourth, as it is ascribed by its very title to St. Maximus, the predecessor of Faustus in the abbey and in the episcopate, so it has nothing why it should be claimed for Faustus, because it is so wholly about the festivity that it presents nothing for the correcting of morals.

[305] Of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth I much doubt more probably neither the fifth, sixth, seventh, nor eighth on Easter, whether they are Faustus's or another's. None of these departs far from the style of Faustus; none has anything from which you may clearly perceive Faustus. The fifth in some manuscript is attributed to St. Isidore, and treats of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. The sixth does not instruct in morals, nor does the seventh. In the eighth the poetic fable of the giant Antaeus is produced, which is unusual in the Works of Faustus. I therefore judge that all these are rather to be adjudged not Faustus's than to be attributed to him. But the ninth I judge with even more certainty not to be Faustus's, although the Benedictine editors, in volume 5 of the Works of St. Augustine, where it is Sermon 161 in the Appendix, assigned it to Faustus. For first, the style of Faustus is not found in it, even though it does not depart far from his diction. Secondly, of the words of St. Thomas, unwilling to believe the resurrection of Christ, it is said: "That voice is of one inquiring, not of one denying." That this was the opinion, or rather the error, of Faustus, a man most versed in sacred Scripture, I shall not easily believe, especially since I find another who taught it.

[306] For in the Appendix of St. Augustine there follows after this Sermon 162, in which the same things are again said about St. Thomas, especially the ninth is to be adjudged not his; and at the beginning of which the preceding Sermon there, that is, Homily IX On Easter, seems to be assigned in these words: "Your holiness remembers, brethren, the earlier treatise, in which we wrote that the holy apostle Thomas, to confirm the faith of all, handled the members of the Lord's body after the resurrection," and so forth. The editors observe on this the following: "Perhaps of the same author as the preceding Sermon, which seems to be designated at the opening of this sermon; and which immediately precedes this very Sermon in the Corbie manuscript." This observation is accurate, since the same doctrine about St. Thomas recurs, and the style of this one too accords well enough with the style of the preceding. But the observation given wholly destroys the conjecture about Faustus as the author. For if there is one author of each, as is highly probable, this one is certainly not Faustus. In no Homily which survives did Faustus refer back to a preceding treatise; never did he say to his hearers Sanctitas vestra, but, addressing them, he said Carissimi. Besides, the style of this Sermon even more openly refuses Faustus

as its author than the ninth Homily does, even though it does not differ much from it. And so I judge that that ninth is without doubt to be adjudged not Faustus's.

[307] but the tenth seems his, and more certainly the eleventh. Of the tenth I judge the contrary. For in this the diction of Faustus seems to shine forth sufficiently, and Thomas is rightly said to have doubted, so that this is not of the same author as the ninth. This one refutes the Pythagorean or Origenian error contrary to the true resurrection of bodies, which elsewhere I do not find in Faustus. But it is not improbable that that error too was refuted by Faustus when occasion was given. I judge therefore that this Homily can probably be attributed to him. Nevertheless, of the Homilies On Easter, the eleventh above the rest contains the style of St. Faustus, and his particular sayings as well, and I judge it altogether to be his. But in this very many things are discussed concerning the necessity of the Incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of man, lost through sin; and on that occasion some things are said which can be dragged into a Semipelagian sense, if anyone, as has everywhere been done with the writings of Faustus, should prefer to expound ambiguous words in a depraved sense rather than in the sound one which they readily admit, and which the constant doctrine of Faustus altogether demands, as we are wont to interpret the more obscure assertions of the Fathers.

[308] from which an ambiguous saying is explained. The whole of what Faustus means there is this: that it was worthy of divine justice that man, who had sinned through free will, should not be brought to salvation without free will, that is, unwillingly, as he puts it — dealing of course with a man brought to the use of reason. And so when he says, "For the Lord, who unbars the gate (of heaven), also awaits the earnestness of him who knocks," he only indicates that a man is not to be saved without good works; but he is not speaking of the first grace or of faith, as though these were to be obtained by the effort of free will. This is the perpetual fault of those who assail Faustus, that the things which he says about the necessity of good works for obtaining salvation they twist to the first graces. This I wished to observe, because these Homilies, which before were only "most eloquent and most religious," began, when Faustus became known as the author, to become Semipelagian in the eyes of some.

[309] Others are Faustus's, with one and perhaps another excepted: The Homily at page 644 inscribed On the Good Thief Ceillier rightly attributes to Faustus. This one, however, has a doctrine opposed to the Semipelagian, since the faith of the thief is attributed first to the enlightenment of the Divinity of Christ, and presently it is said of him: "How quickly did the teaching of the Holy Spirit fill him, through which, thinking upon the day of the judgment to come, although he proves what he fears to be intolerable, he proclaims to the ages the Judge and King of the ages." The Homily On the Litanies which follows cannot probably be attributed to Faustus, both because it does not savor of the style of Faustus, as being destitute of sacred texts, and because it was delivered in a city subdued by the barbarians, which had belonged to the Romans who refused peace. On the contrary, the Homily On the Penance of the Ninevites, although it too was omitted by Ceillier, contains both the style and the familiar expressions of Faustus, so that it can most probably be ascribed to him. Of the two which follow On the Ascension of the Lord, Ceillier attributes the second to Faustus, and is silent about the first. The second, which is Sermon 176 in the Appendix of St. Augustine, seems to me even more certainly Faustus's, whose diction it excellently represents. The first, however, has at the end almost the same things as the second, so that these were carried over from one into the other, and some hold that Faustus frequently repeated his own things. Nevertheless I doubt whether the first is Faustus's, whose character and method of speaking it exhibits less. For another too could have adopted some things from his Homily.

[310] After these Ceillier left the four following unmentioned, others are his, with one again excepted. all of which I judge to be Faustus's. The first of these, at page 649, is On the Day of Pentecost, which I judge altogether to be Faustus's, since it represents his style; just as the two On John the Baptist represent it, and the following one, which is inscribed On the Maccabees and on the innocent boys. The following one, On the Birthday of the apostles Peter and Paul, Ceillier also attributes to Faustus — whether rightly enough, I much doubt. For in it I cannot find Faustus. Then he attributes to him another, whose title is On the Trinity, general, and rightly, as I judge. For in it we recognize Faustus arguing, and we detect briefly touched upon the arguments which for the Divinity of the Holy Spirit he set out more fully in two books. Presently, at page 655, there follows a rather lengthy Homily On St. Maximus, the predecessor of Faustus both in the abbey of Lérins and in the episcopate of Riez, which Ceillier attributes to Faustus according to the common opinion of the learned today. The matter is certain and beyond doubt from the things which the Author says about himself and about his predecessor St. Maximus. The words I have already given at number 48. And so, since this Homily agrees with most of that Collection in style and manner of speaking, just as both this and those agree with the other writings of Faustus, the arguments from style, from particular manners of speaking, from method and habit of teaching, by which we believe most of the Homilies are to be claimed for Faustus, receive much strength from that one indubitable case.

[311] The ten Homilies To Monks which follow Tillemont, in Note 2, judges are all to be claimed for Faustus. Ceillier excepts four, Of the ten Homilies to monks none is to be attributed to St. Caesarius, namely the fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth, "which," he says, "are found among the Homilies of St. Caesarius, and seem to be of his style." Hence on repeated occasions I have wished to consider them all diligently, and to compare them also with several of St. Caesarius's, under whose name the fourth too has been published. But I do not find the exception for St. Caesarius well founded. Certainly all ten represent excellently the style of Faustus, and by name the fifth, which is the first excepted, not only exhibits entirely the method of arguing in which Faustus excelled, but also that phrase familiar to him, "But it is not so," nay, and his sentiments too, which he frequently inculcates. Such is this: "Nor let us think this suffices us for full salvation, that we are reckoned among the servants of God either by our dwelling or counted by our name, that we seem to live on an island and to flourish among monks." The same thing he urged in other words in the fourth, and again in the eighth and in the ninth. In the same Homily V he argues against those who wish to leave the desert and return to the world, as he does also in the fourth, in the fifth, and briefly in the others.

[312] Besides, he was arguing on an island, and, as he has it below, in the desert. Each suits St. Faustus, but all are more probably St. Faustus's: who was abbot at Lérins. But whether this suits St. Caesarius I much doubt. For he was indeed abbot for three years on a suburban island of the Rhône near the city of Arles, as is read in his Life in our work at the twenty-seventh of August, number XI; but of preachings in that monastery the Life says nothing, although concerning his preachings in the episcopate it is not silent at number 13. That St. Caesarius nevertheless sometimes preached to monks I readily believe. He could have taught them and others while he was bishop: but perhaps he never did this while he was only an abbot. Whatever be the case with these matters, I do not find the said Homilies in any way conformable to the style of St. Caesarius: but all agree with the utterance of Faustus, whose style is more polished and more flowery, and whose Latin eloquence is greater than St. Caesarius's.

[313] The third Homily of these is defended against the critique of Tillemont, From the third Homily Tillemont takes these words, "Nor let us presume anything of ourselves, because all that we can do is God's"; and he says that these seem contrary to his doctrine, but that Faustus knew how to accommodate his words to the sense of the Church. By objections of this sort Faustus has been assailed ever since the sixth century, with Maxentius leading the way. If he brings forth anything by which he clearly shows that he thinks rightly about grace, as he frequently does in the very books On Grace and Free Will, he is said to do this only craftily, so as to seem Catholic. But if he has anything which can even by violence be dragged into a depraved sense, however Catholic it may be, he at once becomes a Semipelagian. Of such a kind are the things which follow, and by which Tillemont says the Semipelagian heresy is hinted. Faustus exhorts the monks to tend daily toward better things; and he subjoins: "For the very eagerness of laying hold, the very habit of making progress, will always call us forth to greater things; and when God shall have seen the devotion of the mind, He will breathe in a more ardent affection: and as much as we shall have added to our zeal, so much will He add to His help: as much as we shall have added to our diligence, so much will He add to glory. 'To him that hath, it shall be given, and he shall abound': and in another place He says, 'I have laid help upon one that is mighty.' Grace therefore is born of grace, and advances serve advances," and so forth. Faustus is speaking of the increase of grace which we obtain by prayers and by good works done from grace, as is clear from the words themselves. But that this increase of grace, and perseverance itself too, can be obtained from God, St. Augustine acknowledges in the very Work which he wrote against the Semipelagians.

[314] and claimed for Faustus. The authors of the Literary History, pages 608 and 609, say that the Homily mentioned, whether for its style or for its contents, is the most beautiful of all, and therefore they would prefer to attribute it to St. Caesarius rather than to Faustus. I do not grasp this reasoning: for if perhaps they wish to make the eloquence of St. Caesarius greater than that of St. Faustus, they will be no better judges of style than Tillemont just now was of theology.

[315] Others partly Faustus's, There follows in the Collection, at page 666, a Homily On that which is written: A bruised reed He shall not break, and so forth, which from its style I likewise judge to be Faustus's. Then at page 667 a brief Sermon, or perhaps a fragment, On that: Where two or three are gathered together, and so forth. It is a fragment not unworthy of Faustus, but on account of its brevity the author is less certain. More certainly Faustus's I judge the Sermon which follows under the title An Exhortation to the people, in which many detractions are spoken of. For in it the whole character of Faustus is impressed. Presently there follows another brief Exhortation on God three and one, and so forth, but that is too brief to be able to fill out the title or to indicate a certain author, although otherwise it is not foreign to the style of Faustus. There follow three Homilies On the martyrs, of which the first was delivered at Lyons on SS. Epipodius and Alexander, and by some bishop or presbyter of the church of Lyons. Perhaps the same will be the author of this one who also composed the one mentioned at number 304 on St. Blandina, whether St. Eucherius or another. Each has been claimed for St. Eucherius in our work: the present one at the twenty-second of April, under SS. Epipodius and Alexander; the other at the second of June, under the Martyrs of Lyons. Neither is out of keeping with the style of St. Eucherius.

[316] The second of the three is On St. Genesius the martyr

of Arles, partly of others, but it is uncertain whether it was pronounced at Arles. That there are various opinions about the author of this Homily was said at the twenty-fifth of August, under St. Genesius of Arles, but nothing was there decided. Some attribute it to Faustus. To me it seems conformable to the Homilies of Faustus, both in style, and in its frequent texts of Scripture, and in its care to exhort to the virtues. But if it was delivered at Arles, which is more probable than certain, Faustus could have delivered the address there, as it is established that he did sometimes at Lyons. The third is On St. Romanus the martyr of Antioch, who from the fifth century is said to have had a cult at Vienne, so that it is more probable that it was delivered there. This one therefore I do not judge to be Faustus's, both because it was delivered at Vienne, and on account of its style, which is more conformable to the preceding ones attributed to St. Eucherius.

[317] There follows at page 671 a brief Homily On penance, to penitents. partly doubtful. Of this I can say nothing on account of its brevity, except that the whole genius of Faustus is not found in it, so that perhaps it is another's. On the contrary the Homily whose title is On this, that idols are not to be worshiped, and so forth, exhibits Faustus entire, so that this seems one of those which can most certainly be attributed to him. The one which follows it, An exhortatory Sermon against divers vices, likewise seems Faustus's, and certainly contains some things which are read in the Epistle of Faustus to Ruricius. There is subjoined a Chastising Sermon, in which obedience is compared to a fruitful tree. This is probably of the same Faustus, since it is not out of keeping with his style, even though it does not so clearly exhibit his particular and familiar sayings. The following Homily On the Widow who cast two coins into the treasury is likewise attributed to Faustus, as Ceillier observes, who said nothing about the preceding ones. He objects against that opinion that it seems to be that of a presbyter delivering an address before his own bishop, unless it be Faustus preaching before his metropolitan. I do not find in that Homily the things which are proper to Faustus, yet the style is very similar, so that the author seems to me uncertain. The objection has no force: but the beginning shows that it was delivered in another's church. "That being about to speak here," he says, "at the command of my lord, your father, out of zeal for obedience I do not question my own strength — the reason and cause of this is that what I see enjoined upon me by the highest prelate, I believe I can do." These things any bishop could say in another's church, where he had been invited to preach by its bishop. Whether it was Faustus is ambiguous to me. But here ends the first Collection of those Homilies, afterwards enlarged by the accession of others, to which I proceed.

[318] The first of these, inscribed On the Birthday of a Church, is much different in style from the writings of Faustus, Of those added afterwards the third seems Faustus's, and perhaps others, whose eloquence it does not attain, as neither does the second. These therefore I do not hesitate to adjudge not Faustus's. But the third exhibits Faustus arguing, both by the elegance of its discourse and by sayings familiar to him, so that I judge this Homily On the Dedication of a Church to be altogether the offspring of Faustus. The fourth, whose title is A Sermon to be delivered at the Burial of a priest, does not savor of Faustus, although it is eloquent, since the diction is everywhere grander, and has very little mingled from the sacred Letters. The three other Sermons which follow represent the style of Faustus better, and by name the fifth, which is inscribed Exhortatory, of the holy bishop Faustinus, whom I suspect to be Faustus. The sixth, whose title is When after the delay of some necessity a priest shall have come to his own city, is briefer, and therefore contains less of the whole method of Faustus: yet perhaps it will be his, as an extempore Sermon. The seventh, On this,… We ought always to pray and not to faint, exhibits the diction of Faustus more clearly, and contains also some things likewise said in another Homily, so that it seems altogether to be attributed to Faustus. Then at pages 682 and 683 there are read eight pieces, partly fragments, partly openings, partly brief sermons, which I would not dare to attribute to Faustus, nor yet certainly to adjudge not his, on account of their brevity.

[319] but not so the Homily on St. Honoratus, Then there follows the Homily On the Burial of St. Honoratus, which by some was ascribed to St. Eucherius, by others to St. Faustus. That Homily was delivered at Lérins, and by some abbot of the monastery, since he says that he is discharging his own office. Therefore by this reasoning it is sufficiently shown that the Homily is not St. Eucherius's, who was never abbot at Lérins. But the same reasoning, I think, persuaded several to attribute it to Faustus, since he presided over the abbey for many years. If, however, we are willing attentively to turn over the Homily itself, we shall easily see that it was delivered a long time after the death of St. Honoratus, who died about the year 429 — namely when either none or very few survived who had seen him. Hence he praises the writings of others about the things done at the entrance of St. Honoratus into the island of Lérins: "As we read, that at the entrance of our blessed father," and so forth. Nowhere either does the author say that Honoratus had ever been seen by himself, or by any of the monks whom he was addressing, so that it is more probable that no one survived who had lived with St. Honoratus when the Homily was delivered. And so these observations rather persuade us that the Homily is of one of the successors of St. Faustus. For he without doubt dwelt with very many who had entered the island with Honoratus, and by name with St. Caprasius, who was older than St. Honoratus, nay, and with Honoratus himself, since he was made abbot only seven years after his elevation to the episcopate. If now to these reasons we add that the style of the Homily differs much from the style of Faustus, and falls far short of his elegance, we shall without doubt adjudge that Homily not Faustus's.

[320] nor those that follow. Finally, at page 685 there follows a brief discourse under the title A Chastisement, and then another, whose title is An exhortatory Sermon. Neither do I judge to be Faustus's, even though the first departs less far from his style. Thus far concerning that Collection of Homilies, which, together with other Homilies added to it by himself from elsewhere, Oudin strove to claim wholly for St. Faustus. The earlier part of this Collection was also seen by Bellarmine, as it had been published under the name of Eusebius of Emesa. Hence Bellarmine, On Writers, page 216, under Eusebius of Emesa, observes that the Homilies are certainly not his, but perhaps are St. Faustus's, or St. Eucherius's, or even St. Caesarius's, defining nothing. There follows in the Library of the Fathers another Collection of Homilies under the name of Eusebius, bishop of Gaul: but this is of a more recent writer, and of a very different style, nor has it been attributed by anyone to St. Faustus. There remain now several other Homilies which have been attributed to St. Faustus by moderns. In reviewing these I shall follow Ceillier, as I have begun; although I do not always adopt his opinion.

[321] Another Homily of Faustus in Martène, Martène, in volume 5 of the Anecdota, column 57, gave a brief Homily On the Passion of the Lord from a manuscript of Saint-Illide of Clermont, which is there called St. Faustinus's, and thence is believed by some to be our Faustus's, as Ceillier observes. Of it he says: "Its style is clearer than the style of Faustus is; but the doctrine about grace is the same." Another had already said the same in the French tongue. I say candidly that I find nothing in the whole Homily about grace, except that man was redeemed by Christ, and a free faculty conferred upon him — that is, grace acquired for man by the merits of the Passion of Christ, by which he is made free even for good works. This certainly is the doctrine of Faustus, and it is thoroughly Catholic. But if this Homily seems clear, none of Faustus's will seem obscure to all those who know the Latin tongue well. For Faustus used a Latin and indeed an elegant discourse, and therefore he may seem obscure to those who more easily grasp a plebeian speech. But as regards the Homily mentioned, I judge it to be Faustus's, since his style shines forth in it sufficiently, and the inscription favors it.

[322] Another was published under the name of St. Faustinus by d'Achery in volume 7 of the Spicilegium, another in d'Achery, which rather seems to be Caesarius's: partly at page 86 and partly at page 118. D'Achery found the whole of it in a Corbie codex, but the earlier part had been adduced by Aeneas, bishop of Paris, in his book against the Greeks published in the same place, and therefore he gave the other part at page 118. D'Achery judged it Faustus's, and at page 118 noted that in the same codex there exists another sermon under the name of St. Faustinus, On Lent, already published under the name of St. Caesarius in the Lyons Library, volume 8, page 820, with this beginning, "I ask you," and so forth. Both these sermons are of the same style, so that they seem also to be attributed to the same man. But the style seems to indicate St. Caesarius rather than St. Faustus. And so, notwithstanding the inscription, I judge that the sermon published by d'Achery is equally to be adjudged not Faustus's, as the other has already been adjudged not Faustus's.

[323] Ceillier then says that a third Homily under the name of St. Faustinus was reprinted from Canisius in the Library, volume 8, page 747. two others rather to be attributed to St. Caesarius. But this was reprinted there under the name of Faustus, as it had been published by Canisius under the title An Admonition of St. Faustus. In the codex, however, which Canisius notes is faulty, volume 5, page 420, it was "of Saint Flaustus," which he rightly believed should be corrected. This Homily is not altogether conformable to the style of Faustus, and was probably adjudged not his by the editors of the Works of St. Augustine in the Appendix of volume 5, column 200, where it is also found, and is more probably attributed to St. Caesarius. There precedes in the Library "A sermon of Faustus, bishop of Riez, to monks." But this has already been adjudged Faustus's, since it is the third Homily of the ten To Monks. Then Ceillier observes that the name of Faustinus is also prefixed to a Sermon published by us at the first of January, whose title is On the Kalends of January. Some suspect that this Sermon is Faustus's, whom nevertheless I cannot find entire in it; but it seems to me to come nearer to the character of St. Caesarius, as the editors of the Works of St. Augustine also judged, where in volume 5, in the Appendix, it is Sermon 129.

[324] After the Homily on St. Honoratus, already above adjudged not Faustus's, Several Sermons in the Appendix of St. Augustine: Ceillier assigns, among the Sermons once attributed to St. Augustine, in the Appendix of volume 5, Sermon 153, which is On the Passion of the Lord IV. Tillemont, together with the editor of the Works of St. Augustine, suspects that this Sermon is in all likelihood Faustus's, whose judgment I think should be followed. More certainly, however, is the Sermon which follows in the same place attributed to Faustus; but this one, elsewhere inscribed On the good Thief, we have already attributed to Faustus at number 309. The praised editors of the Works of St. Augustine also suspect that Sermon 162 of the Appendix is Faustus's. But I cannot agree, since the style seems notably different. The same men again, at page 327, judge that Sermon 196 of the Appendix is Faustus's, and with them agree the Author of the Literary History and Ceillier. It is certain that many

thoughts of Faustus were carried over into the said Sermon, as the aforesaid editors of St. Augustine skilfully observe. And so I too suspect that it is Faustus's, yet I would not dare to affirm it with certainty, because it does not contain his particular sayings.

[325] three sermons of Faustus among those published by Holstenius, Then Ceillier assigns four Sermons printed under the name of St. Faustus in Holstenius, in the Appendix to the Codex Regularum, from p. 66. Of these, two have already been attributed to Faustus. For the second is the same as the third Homily of the ten to the Monks, and the fourth the same as the eighth of those. Against the first and the third, however, Tillemont raises several difficulties in his Note 2. The first does not depart from Faustus's diction, and it has various things similarly said in his other Homilies to the Monks. But Tillemont objects that in it mention is made of a father recently deceased, to the imitation of whose virtues he exhorts the monks. The objection would indeed have force if the word recently were expressed. For in all likelihood by "father" is understood St. Honoratus, who had passed from the abbacy to the episcopate seven years before Faustus was made abbot. But that man is indeed said to be deceased, yet recently is not added, nor is it certainly implied by the manner of speaking, as Tillemont wrongly believed. And so this Sermon too is at least more probably to be attributed to Faustus.

[326] another perhaps by Cæsarius. Of the third I say without hesitation that it has been falsely ascribed to Faustus: for the style alone, which falls far short of Faustus's elegance, suffices for this judgment. There is added, moreover, that the author was not an abbot of Lérins but either a bishop or a presbyter, since at the end he says that he has been tossed by countless storms of the world. Nor can it be said that the Sermon was delivered by Faustus while he was bishop. For at the beginning he addresses the monks so timidly and bashfully that this Sermon can in no way suit Faustus, who had for a very long time preached before those monks as abbot. Tillemont observed these things rightly, but Ceillier omitted them. I have found that Sermon among those published under the name of St. Cæsarius, and it suits him better, if it was delivered while he was a presbyter, or at the beginning of his episcopate.

[327] Another Sermon from the Appendix wrongly attributed to Faustus: In the Appendix of St. Augustine, col. 336, the Benedictine editors would wish to attribute to Faustus also Sermon 203 on SS. Peter and Paul. The chief reason is perhaps that there is in it a passage which savours of the Semipelagian error. But what they there rightly argue — unless the passage be corrupt and to be corrected by the change of a single word — no one, I think, will ever find in any work of Faustus. As for the Sermon itself, its character is plainly different from Faustus's style, so that it is most certainly to be denied him. The other on Peter and Paul, with which they compare this one, I have already denied to Faustus: but this one I judge to be denied him yet more certainly, since it is the work of a man inept and unlearned, who scraped together some things from various sources and unskilfully added his own. If the said editors thought that those Homilies are Faustus's in which they find some things conformable to the Homilies commonly called Eusebian, they might more probably have attributed to Faustus Sermon 182 of the same Appendix, and several others — about which, however, I wish to determine nothing, since Faustus's Homilies gave light to others also.

Sirmond, in his Notes on the new Sermons of St. Augustine, on Sermon XXV On the Finding of St. Stephen, observes that a Sermon of the same argument is found in the Paris library of the Society of Jesus, not yet published, by Faustus the bishop, "perhaps of Riez," he says. The beginning of the Sermon, which he quotes, agrees well enough with the style of our Faustus.

[328] six Sermons published by Martène under the name of Faustus. Lastly, Martène and Durand, in vol. 9 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col. 141, published six Sermons of Faustus the bishop, as the title has it, to the Monks. But not all were spoken to monks, and some had already been published. The first is the same as the first published in the Codex Regularum, and appears to be our Faustus's, as was said above. The second there is the third, and is not Faustus of Riez's. Whether the rest had been published before, I do not inquire; but only whether they appear to be Faustus's. The third, on penance, has nothing at all by which it could be attributed to Faustus. The same must be said of the fourth. The fifth is no more Faustus's, and not even the sixth, although this at least comes nearer to his style. For the three preceding are very far removed from Faustus's diction and acuteness. The sixth in some measure approaches Faustus's diction; but it represents neither his method in discussing, in exhorting, and in forming morals, nor in the employment of texts of sacred Scripture, nor does it attain the whole elegance of his style, and finally it has nothing of those things which are most frequent and familiar with Faustus. Therefore I do not hesitate to deny all these Sermons, except the first, to Faustus of Riez.

[329] In our manuscript codex, which is marked P. Ms. 10, Two of the Appendix, attributed in our manuscript to Faustus. two Homilies are ascribed to Faustus the bishop, and the title has it that they were spoken on the Circumcision of the Lord, but they treat rather of the Nativity. Each has been published in the often-mentioned Appendix of St. Augustine, where they are Sermons 119 and 121, the third and the fifth on the Nativity of the Lord. The editors denied both to Augustine, but indicated no author. Ours, as I have said, our codex makes Faustus; whether rightly, I would not determine: for I do not find the whole Faustus in those Sermons, and therefore I would not dare either to put faith in the title, or to adjudge those Homilies or Sermons with certainty to our Faustus. Nevertheless the former, or Sermon 119, exhibits Faustus's style after a fashion, yet not his particular sayings, nor the moral doctrine of which his Homilies are rarely destitute. Of that sermon, therefore, I much doubt: the other I believe still less to be Faustus's, since it departs further from his style. For the rest, we cannot doubt that very many of Faustus's Homilies have either perished or still lie unpublished in libraries, just as several have perhaps been published under other names besides those mentioned. Likewise very many of his Letters have perished, as many of most of the Fathers have perished.

[330] The authors of the Histoire littéraire and Ceillier would have it that other little works of Faustus have also perished, The work of Faustus praised by Sidonius has not perished: nor the Records but without adequate reason, as I judge. First they name that one which Sidonius attends with the highest praises, as we saw in §13. But already there, at num. 245 and following, I proved that the work of Faustus upon whose commendation Sidonius strains every sinew of his eloquence appears to be no other than his books On Grace and Free Will. The silence of Gennadius can be added to the arguments given there. For although Gennadius confesses that some writings of Faustus had not been read by him, that is nevertheless not likely of a great work which had been composed before the year 474 and celebrated with the highest praises by Sidonius; but Gennadius's words are to be understood only of Homilies, Letters, or lesser little works. Wherefore, since it is not likely that Gennadius kept silence about that work, and since all the little works of Faustus reported by him still survive, it is altogether improbable that that one alone, praised above the rest, has perished. The said writers say besides that Faustus collected Records for writing the Life of St. Maximus his predecessor, and that these were sought in the following century by the patrician Dynamius, when he was about to write the Life of St. Maximus, but were found either consumed by moths or spoiled by dust. They cite the Letter of Dynamius, prefixed in the Chronologia Lerinensis, vol. 2, p. 120, to the Life of St. Maximus.

[331] for the Life of St. Maximus: for he did not compose these: But I judge that that is not the sense of that Letter, and certainly there is no mention there either of moths or of dust by which Faustus's writings had been gnawed. And since Dynamius was writing to Urbicus, who was made bishop of Riez not a full century after Faustus, neither is what is asserted likely — namely that within about a single century Faustus's writings had been so gnawed away. The words of Dynamius, perhaps somewhat corrupt, are these: You have therefore indicated that you turned over old volumes of papers, into which the devoted diligence of the blessed prelate Faustus your predecessor had gathered somewhat out of his works: whence you were scarcely able to determine (in the margin, to discern) a few things by sense rather than by sight. For the voracity of envious antiquity had consumed very many things which lay hidden. That phrase the voracity of envious antiquity had consumed very many things is clearly said of the deeds of St. Maximus, not of the writings of St. Faustus, as is a few things just before, to which it is opposed. But that Urbicus and his men were able to gather only a few things about the deeds of St. Maximus out of Faustus's writings had not come about because those writings were too far gnawed away, but because Faustus had, in all likelihood in a few Homilies, touched briefly upon only a few of the deeds of St. Maximus.

[332] nor any Work mentioned by Gennadius. Certainly in that one which survives, Faustus praised St. Maximus almost in general terms, and recorded very few things about his particular deeds. Whence they were scarcely able to determine a few things by sense rather than by sight; that is, out of generic praises they were scarcely able, by careful consideration rather than by reading alone, to determine or discern a few particular deeds or virtues. And so those Records, collected (as they will have it) for the Life of St. Maximus, vanish; the moths and the dust vanish, by which those writings would have been gnawed away far sooner than is credible; and there vanishes likewise what Ceillier at p. 187 was at pains to gather from those moths and fictitious dusts — namely that there was little care for preserving Faustus's writings, and perhaps no greater esteem for them. If judgment about the esteem in which Faustus's writings were held is to be made from their preservation, that esteem will have been very great, at least in Gaul, since I have reviewed all those mentioned by Gennadius and shown that they survive. Trithemius among Faustus's writings also lists one book against the Anthropomorphites, but he does not indicate its opening, so that it is likely he never saw it, as Ceillier rightly observes. Of it I have found nothing among the older writers, as the author of the Histoire littéraire also observes, who prudently adds that for this reason Trithemius does not deserve credit concerning that little work. Finally, there has perished that Letter of Faustus from which St. Cæsarius, in the case of the bishop Contumeliosus, cited that sentence, in Labbe, vol. 4, col. [ ]: He loses the grace of the consecrated man who still wishes to exercise the office of a husband. But that many letters and Homilies have perished, we have already said.