Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 10
Proceed we to the Heresie of Pelagius. Of that thus Doctor Heylin, Page 7.
Pelagius, a Britain born, either mis…uided by the lavishness of their (i. e. the Fathers who lived before Austin) expressions, or otherwise willing to get a name unto himself by some new invention, ascribed so much unto the freedom of the will in acts of piety, ut gratiam Dei necessariam non putarer, as Vincentius Strynensis tell…th us of him: This man associated with Caelestinus and Julianus, two of his Companions, began to spread abroad their errours about the year 405. amongst the which those that especially concern this purpose, are these two that follow,
1. Non esse liberum arbitrium, si Dei indiget auxilio, quoniam in propria voluntate habet unusquisque, facere aliquid vel non facere.
2. Victoriam nostram non ex Dei adjutorio esse, sed ex libero arbitrio. Add unto these that Orationes quas facit Ecclesia pro infidelibus & aliis peccatoribus ut convertantur, sive pro fidelibus ut perseverent, frustra fieri.
Pag. 8. These Pelagian Heresies did not hold out long; being solemnly condemned in the two African Councels of Carthage and Milevis, confuted by S. Augustin with great care and diligence, and finally retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine.
Pag. 9. After this time we meet with no such enemies to the grace of God, no such advancers of mans free-will and the power of nature, as might entitle any man to the crime of Pelagianism.
Answ. It must be acknowledged, that great care was used by the Church of God, to pluck up the tares that were sowed by Pelagius, and by (his Scholars shall I say or Masters) Caelestius and Iulianus. The Learned and Holy Fathers employed their Pens against them, Councels made use of their authority against them, nor was the Secular power wanting to make very severe Edicts against them. But why doth the Doctor say that the Pelagian Heresies were retracted by Pelagius himself in the Synod of Palestine? Retractation is when a man out of conviction of judgement revokes his errour: That Pelagius did in that Councel of Palestine do so, appears not. That Councel 'tis well known, is by Hierom called a miserable Synod, not as erring in Doctrine, but as erring in the person; supposing Pelagius to condemn his opinions heartily, which he condemned but feignedly, Hier. Epis. 79. He essayed also to put the same trick on the Church of Rome, but was not able▪ Aug. de peccat. merit. & remiss. l. 11. c. 8. & 9. And I doubt there have been too many in these two last Centuries, that have too far imitated Pelagius, and seemed to have no enmity against grace (a word they frequently use;) whereas upon examination it will be found that they were the enemies of it, and advancers of nature. To this end I must be more careful in setting down the History of Pelagius, than the Doctor hath been. I must also touch upon the story of the Semipelagians, which he doth not so much as mention: And if after this it doth not appear, that the Iesuits and Arminians deserve to be ranked with them; then let the Contra-Remonstrants be accounted as egregious Calumniators, as the Remonstrants are found to be, in laying the blasphemy of Florinus to the charge of the Calvinists.
Pelagius is by the Learned Vossius more than once affirmed to be by birth a Scotchman. Being such a Pestilent enemy to the grace of God (unto which we owe all that we have, and all that we are) it might be excusable, if we should let this errour go undetected: but because truth is to be preferred to the honour of our Nation, we will rectifie that mistake, and acknowledge that he was our own Countryman: called (as is conceived) Pelagius, because born near the Sea-side. Some Cantabrigians would have him a Student in their University, and so ungrateful to it, as to cause the overthrow and ruine of it, because it afforded Orthodox Divines that opposed his Doctrines. But upon the best search, it cannot be found that Pelagius in person did ever vent his poison in this Nation. They are in the right, who assign the Monastry of Banchor for the place of his education. As to his natural and acquired parts, it is not unknown how sleightly Orosius speaks of them in his Apologet: as if he had been a man Cui neque natales dederunt ut honestioribus studiis erudiretur, neque naturaliter proveniebat ut saperet. But though Orosius be, not undeservedly, by Mr. Mountague called Nobilissimus rerum Christianarum Historicus, yet is he not in this ingenuous; it being impossible that he should not have seen that Epistle of Pelagius, which sheweth him sufficiently a Scholar: Had he not been so, the Fathers, and the Church of God, would never have so troubled themselves about him. His conversation is by some commended; by others, who had as much reason to be acquainted with it, as much decryed: Vir egregie Christianus, vir Sanctus, & non parvo profectu Christianus, are Elogiums bestowed on him by Austin, a man who seems to be raised up on purpose to confute him, lib. 3. de pec. merit. & remis. cap. 1. & 3; It appears also by Chrysostom, in his fourth Epis. ad Olympiad. that he was reckoned among the men that did live very temperately and fare hardly, insomuch that the Father being at that time in exile, Death approaching, did grieve exceedingly, when he heard of his erring from the Faith: But yet I find Pelusiota (a Scholar of this very Chrysostome, so Holy, that he was called by a peculiar name foreign,) fastning a quite contrary Character on him, as if he were much under the power of a sensual appetite, and this in an Epistle directed to Pelagius himself, Lib. 1. Epist, 314. pag. mihi 84.
foreign.
How are these things to be reconciled? Perhaps thus, Pelagius before he swerved from the Faith, did lead a strict life, and had a glorious form of Godliness; but when he fell into his horrid opinions derogatory to the grace of God, then was he a slave to his lusts: and just it was with God, to let him see how impossible it was to lead so much as a sober life without that grace, which he would not acknowledge necessary, no not to the highest acts of piety. Indeed Iansenius hath made this general observation, that all the Pelagians were somewhat loose in their lives: Which observation, as he takes abundance of good pains to prove, so can it not▪ I conceive, be too much considered in this Controversie; because the Pelagians do urge nothing more vehemently than this, that the extolling of the Grace of God, and lessening of the liberty of mans will, is the readiest way to destroy all piety; as shall be seen more hereafter. Mean while, we must take notice of a more modest and refined sort of Pelagians, commonly called Semipelagians, and from the place where they did most abound, Massilienses. Our England might accidentally occasion the rise of these men. Agricola an Emissarie of Pelagius had infected our Church with Pelagianism; which it was no difficult thing to do, considering the dreadful ignorance, and lasiness of the British Bishops in those days: Hereupon it was thought necessary to call in Forreign assistance: Germanus Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus Bishop of Troyes are sent for out of France; who not consulting with flesh and blood came over, and by Preaching and that signal Dispute at S. Albanes, did so prevail, that the people who heard them were generally either established or converted: But this Root of bitterness not many years after began to sprout again; which occasioned another voyage of Germanus into Britain, his companion being now not Lupus but Severus: Success answered his second endeavours as his first; he so far prevailed, that the Pelagians durst scarse shew their heads; yea a Synod was called, in the which their damnable opinions were condemned. All this may more fully be seen in Sir Henry Spelman, who follows venerable Bede and Mat. Westmon. But whilest these good men are thus busied in … Neighbour Church, some Tares are Sowed in their own, yea and take deep Root, and spread very far. These Reliquiae Pelagii created S. Austin as much trouble as the down right Pelagians. I know these Semipelagians did always profess to abhor Pelagius, and those Tenents of his which the Church of God had condemned. Vincentius Lirinensis, one of them, gives Pelagius the Epithet of prophanus, and his Scholar Caelestius of prodigiosus. But he that will take the pains to examine their opinions, shall find that they did, though not in every point, erre Pelagius his errour.
Prosper in his 41 Chapter against Cassian, whom he calls by the name of Collator, lets fall these words, Paria sunt …nius seminis germina, & quod latebat in radicibus manifestatur in fructibus. Non ergo cum istis nova acie dimicandum est, nec qua…i contra ignotos hostes specialia sunt ineunda certamina; tunc istorum machinae fractae sunt, tunc in superbiae sociis & principibus corruerunt, quando beatae memoriae Innocentius nefandi erroris capita Apostolico mucrone percussit.
The question is, whether Arminius and his followers do hold the opinions that the Pelagians, and Semipelagians did; Calvin and his followers the same that Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius did? Affirmatur. My a…firmation I'le make good, by comparing the writings of each party; but shall first make use of one Argument, which alone will be sufficient to perswade my Reader that I am not mistaken: It is this, That the Pelagians and Semipelagians did all along object the same things against, and lay the same imputations upon, the Augustinian Doctrines, that now the Arminians do upon the Calvinistical. What are the imputations and aspersions, which at this day are cast upon the Calvinists? Are they not these,
1. That they take away free-will, and bring in a stoical fatality.
2. That they make God the Author of sin, and of all the punishments that do befal the Creature.
3. That they open a gap to despair and slothfulness.
4. That they take away all use of precepts, promises, threatnings, yea and prayer it self.
5. That they make God an impostor; seeing he commands men to repent and believe, yet doth not seriously will their Faith and Repentance, nor their Salvation, unto which only Faith and Repentance can entitle them.
6. That their opinions are against the whole current and stream of antiquity.
All these are urged by the Author, or rather the Authors, of that Tract called, Gods Love to Mankind, and indeed they do utramque paginam facere in all Arminian Writers. If all these horrid things were also laid to the charge of the blessed Augustine, it will at least be highly probable, that Austin and Calvin were of the same mind, about the Decrees of God and those other Controversies depending thereupon. Whether they were laid to his charge, we must now make some easie enquiry. As to the first, the taking away of free-will, and introducing stoical fatality; six hundred times was it objected to the Father, especially by Faustus in his two Books, de gra…ia & libero arbitrio. Sub pietatis fronte gentilitatis fatum, & inter gratiae Vocabulum absconditum erit fatale decretum, Fa…st. lib. 1. cap. 4. Pros. in his Epistle to Rufi. Scripta ejus (Augustini) quibus error Pelagianorum impugnatur infamant, dicentes eum liberum arbitrium penitus submovere, & sub gratiae nomine necessitatem praedicare fatalem.
2. Nor were they wanting to charge the Learned Bishop, with making God the Author of sin, and of that damnation, which is a necessary consequent of mens dying in their sin. Let any man but read over the Vincentian Objections, which the Learned Vossius thinks were made by Vincentius Lirinensis, he shall find that they harp upon no string more than this, that Austins notion of the Divine Decree ascribed the sin and damnation of men to God himself▪ the fourth to the fifteenth of those Objections, is nothing else but this one charge, prosecuted in different phrases and expressions.
3. Nor were they ashamed to say that his principles did lead Sinners to desperation, and taught Saints to be slothful. So much we learn from the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary to S. Austin, in which the Semipelagians are brought in saying, that the Decree as conceived by S. Austin did, & lapsis curam resurgendi adimere, & sanctis occasionem teporis afferre, e… quod ex utraque parte superfluus labor sit, si neque rejectus ulla industria possit intrare, neque electus ulla negligentia possit excidere: quocunque enim modo se egerint, non posse aliud erga eos quam Deus definivit accidere, & sub incerta spe cursum non posse esse constantem: cum si aliud habeat praedestinantis electio, cassa sit annitentis intentio.
4. They wanted not a forehead to affirm, that Austins Doctrine took away all use of preaching, exhorting, reproving, praying, Hil. ad Aug. Excludi putant omnem praedicationis vigorem, fi nihil quod per eam excitetur remansisse dicatur: Ibid. Si sic praedestinati sunt ad utramque partem, ut de aliis ad alios nullus posset accedere, quo pertinet tanta extrinsecus correptionis instantia? To the same purpose Prosper. But let us hear our Countrey man Faustus lib. 1. de grat. & lib. arb. cap. 4. Qui unum ex origine perditum, alterum in praedestinatione affirmat electum, vide quo improba persuasione declinet; Quid enim aliud dicit nisi quod adjutorio orationis neuter indigeat; Nam jam praeordinatis ad vitam necessaria non erit, deputatis ad mortem prodesse non poterit; in isto supervacua, in illo infirma judicabitur. Beneficia supplicationis qui in acquisitione praedestinationis est, non requirit: qui vero in perditionis parte, non recipit. Quod si curam impendendam aestimat orationi, indubitanter intelligat ea quae imminent posse mutari.
5. They charged it upo… Austin, that contra…y to the plain words of the Apostle, he must needs hold that God would not have all men to be saved. Quod non omnes velit Deus salvos fieri, sed certum numerum praedestinatorum, are the words of the Frenchmen or Massilians, (i. e. Semipelagians,) Cap. 8. Gall. Quod Deus nolit omnes salvare, etiamsi omnes salvari velint, is the second Vincentian Objection.
They said also that the blessed Fathers opinion was destitute of all Antiquity, and contrary to the opinion of all that had written before him. So Prosper in the very beginning of that Epistle which he did write to Austin, Contrarium putant Patrum opinioni, & Ecclesiastico sensui, quicquid de vocatione electorum secundum Dei propositum disputasti: and a little after, Obstinationem suam vetustate defendunt, & ea quae, de Epistola Apost. Pauli Romanis scribentis, ad manifestationem Divinae gratiae praevenientis electorum merita proferuntur, a nullo unquam Ecclesiasticorum ita esse intellecta ut nunc sentiuntur, affirmant.
It can scarse be doubted, but that we, who have the very same things objected against us that were objected against S. Austin, are of the same mind that Austin was; but because I am resolved to give not only full measure, but also running over, I shall make a parallel betwixt the Pelagian and Semipelagian Heresie, and the opinions of Arminius and his Remonstrant crew.
Pelagius (in this not followed by the Semipelagians) did deny original sin. That in this he and Arminians do not differ needs not much proof; One of our own, highly honoured by the men of his own party, in a Book called Unum Necessar. doth in most express terms deny original sin, and take a great deal of unhappy pains to answer or rather elude, all the arguments drawn either from Scripture or experience for the proof of it. But perhaps Arminius, and his more ancient Disciples were modester? I must confess, this Writer hath exceeded and gone beyond Arminius, and all the Dutch Remonstrants; but yet Corvinus hath told us, Cont. Til. pag. 388. That, with Arminius, original sin hath not the nature of sin or fault, properly so called. I would feign have passed this as a Criticism, and charitably have supposed, that he had only meant that original sin was not a sin or fault, in such a sense as actual sin is, but that I find Arminius himself, Answer to the ninth Question, pag. 174, affirming, that it is wrongfully said, that original sin maketh a man guilty of death. Had he said that none are actually damned for original sin, it had been more tolerable, but to say that it doth not make guilty, or obnoxious unto death, is to make it no sin at all; and yet thus do the Remonstrants also speak in Apol. Cap. 7. Peccatum originis nec habent pro peccato proprie sic dicto, quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat: nec pro malo, quod per modum proprie dictae paenae, ab Adamo in posteros dimanet, &c. The Pelagians also were wont much to insist on this, that Nothing could be both a sin and a punishment of sin; because sin is voluntary, punishment involuntary, &c. Austin to convince them, used to produce that place, which indeed carrieth great evidence in it, Rom. 1. Against this, Iulianus would say, those speeches were Hyperbolical; but yet the Father so pressed him, that sometimes he could not but acknowledge that something might be, & peccatum, & paena peccati; whence that, lib. 5. cont. Iulia. cap. 9. Meministine quamdiu disputaveris contrae lucidissimam quae per Apostolum deprompta est veritatem, affirmans nullo modo esse posse aliquid, quod & peccatum sit & paena peccati? Quid est ergo nunc quod oblitus loquacitatis tuae, &c? Doth not Arminius Pelagianize in this? See but the one and thirtieth Article objected to him; It will thence appear, that he took exception against the publick Catechism, because in it is said, that Original sin is a punishment; for if God did punish Adams sin with this, then he must punish this with another, and that other with another, and so there will be a processus in infinitum. My business is not now to answer the Objections of Arminius, but only to discover his opinion; yet least any one should think this subtlety unanswerable, I refer him to the lately published Lectures of Doctor Samuel Ward, de p…ccat… Originali, (pag. 8.) where it is taken notice of and answered satisfactorily.
Our next parallel shall be in the Doctrine, relating to Gods Decree, and the absoluteness or conditionality thereof. The opinion of Pelagius was, that the well using of free-will and natural powers is the cause of predestination: How much or how little the Massilians differed from him, in assigning the cause of Predestination, is shewn largely by Vossius, Hist. Pel. lib. 6. pag. 533, 534, &c. and by Iansenius de Haeres. Pelag. lib. 8. cap. 21. to whom I refer my Reader; And shall now only take notice of Saint Prosp…rs Epistle to Saint Austin, in which I find the Semipelagians thus represented, They hold that God, before the Foundations of the World were laid, did foresee who would believe, and who would persevere in that Faith, (to this perseverance in saith they acknowledged the help of gra…e was needful:) and predestinated those to his Kingdom, of whom he foresaw that they would be worthy his vocation, and go out of this World making a good end. If their judgement was asked about infants dying in their infancy, they would reply, that they were predestinated to life or death according to the good or bad life which God foresaw they would have lead, if they had come to maturity of years.
Do the Arminians, who are so angry when called Pelagians, differ from them in this? I confess Arminius doth not make a man to be predestinated from foreseen Works, but from foreseen Faith; nor doth he make Faith the cause, but a condition, or decent antecedent, using a less suspected term, but intending the very same thing; for as our incomparable Davenant hath well observed, Conditions are of two sorts,Dissert. de prae. & reprob. p. 118. common & distinguishing; these later, he defineth to be such acts or qualities, which being foreseen, or preconsidered in the subject, contrary Divine Acts are exercised about that subject. Arminius when he makes Faith a condition of Divine Election, infidelity a condition of reprobation, takes the word condition in the later sense, and so plainly makes it the same with a meritorious or motive cause; for he every where maintains that, posita side ponitur electio, negata fide negatur electio; that Faith is a means ordained and appointed by God for the obtaining of Election: therefore as that Learned Professor well concludes, pag. 119, 120. Sunt merae verborum praestigiae cum aiunt, praevisam fidem & infidelitatem esse conditioones, non modo quae praecedunt praedestinationem & reprobationem communiter & promiscue consideratam, sed etiam ex quibus oritur distinctio electorum, & tamen negant habere aliquam causalitatem.
Consequently, as the Pelagians and Semipelagians did hold that the number of Elect and reprobate was not definite, but indefinite and indeterminate; so also do the Anticalvinists or Arminians: Illud pariter non accipiunt eligendorum rejiciendorumque esse defini…um numerum, saith Hilary Epist. ad August. of the Massilians. Grevincov. Thes. exhib. p. 137, saith the same, Electio incompleta potest interrumpi, ac interdum interrumpitur: suntq…e incomplete electi, vere quidem electi; sed possunt fieri reprobi, ac perire: numerusque electorum potest angeri ac minui.
3. Our third parallel shall be in the Doctrine of grace, the efficaciousness of grace. Hilary, in the so often quoted Epistle to Austin, thus describes the Massi…ians, They affirm the will to be so free, that it can of its own accord admit or refuse Cure or Medicine: and Faustus plainly tells us, that Though it be of the grace of God that men are called, yet the following the call is referred to their own will. Are our Arminians any whit more careful to give grace the things that belong to grace? do they not make converting grace to be nothing else but a gentle suasion? do they not every where rant against those who hold, that God doth by an Omnipotent and unresistable motion, beget Faith and other Divine Graces in us? I shall among many places that do occur, for the confirmation of this, make choice onelyonly of two: Hague conference pag. 282. A man may hinder his own regeneration, even then when God will regenerate him, and doth will to regenerate him; And Arnold. against Boyerm. pag. 263. saith expresly, that all the operation which God useth to the Conversion of men being already performed, yet this Conversion still remaineth in mans power, so that he can convert or not convert, believe or not believe.
I had thought to have proceeded to the point of perseverance, but that I considered the necessary dependance of that on the other two, concerning Election and Grace. By what hath already been laid down, it is manifest, that if the Pelagians and Semipelagians were in the right, then are not the Arminians mistaken; but if Austin, Prosper, Hilary, and those others whom the Church of God hath been wont to grace with the Title of Orthodox, were not in an errour, then Mr. Calvin and those that follow him are in the right.
Obj. Here I may expect it will be said, that the Doctrine most quarrelled at in the Calvinists, is the Doctrine of absolute reprobation, and in favour of that, nothing hath yet been produced out of Orthodox antiquity.
Ans. To that I shall answer,
1. By concession that if by reprobation absolute, be meant a purpose to damn any man without consideration of, or respect unto sin, either actual or original; such an absolute reprobation is indeed unknown to all antiquity: but as yet I could never meet with that Calvinist that asserted such an absolute reprobation.
2. But if by reprobation absolute be meant, Gods purpose to deny Grace to some according to the pleasure of his will; I then stick not to affirm, that such reprobation absolute is not unknown to antiquity. Indeed the Ancients do rarely speak of reprobation; our Church in her Articles mentions it not at all; both they & she leave us to gather the nature of reprobation, which is but Non-Election or Praeterition, from what we find laid down concerning Election. Now seeing the Fathers, those of them that had to with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, did constantly affirm, that Gods own good will, not any foresight of the good use of free-will, was it which moved God to give converting grace unto some; they must also hold that God did out of his own good pleasure, and not from any fore-sight of an ill use of free-will, purpose to deny this efficacious converting grace unto others. Indeed it's scarce rational to assert, that God should purpose not to cure any one, because he is sick; not to enlighten any one, because he was by him looked on as dark and blind. But concerning the Judgement of Antiquity in this matter, no more shall be said at present; the Reader that desires further satisfaction, is referred to the Learned Davenant, in the close of his most accurate Dissertation, concerning Election and Reprobation. As for Vossius his judgement concerning reprobation, it is considered in a Manuscript by Doctor Twisse, which Manuscript may possibly in a short time be published. From it, the World will soon see, how unjustly the absolute Decree is charged with Novelty.
Object. 2. It may be further objected, that about the year 415 there were a Sect of men called Praedestinati, who were accounted and condemned for Hereticks, whose opinions about the Divine Decrees seem to be the very same that are now maintained by the followers of Calvin.
Answ. This Objection were scarce worth the taking notice of, if one R. B. Gentleman, in his English Manual, called a Muster roll of evil Angels, had not placed the Praedestinati among the Capital Hereticks; but since it hath pleased him so to do, upon the credit and authority of Sigebert Monk of Gemblaux, it will be needful to let the English Reader know, that this Predestinarian Heresie is a meer figment, and that there never were any such Hereticks as the Praedestinati. So much this Mr. R. B. might have learned from Doctor Twisse, Answer to Gods Love to Mankind, Part 1. pag. 58, 59. and more fully from Iansenius, Tom. 1. pag. 219, 220, &c. Had there been any such Heresie Anno 415, or 414, undoubtedly S. Austin and S. Prosper would have taken notice of it, and have endeavoured to distinguish their own opinion from it, which yet no man saith they do: On the contrary, it is manifest that the Dogmata which are by Sigebertus, Hincmarus, and Gennadius fathered upon the Praedestinarians, are the very Tenents, with which the Semipelagians did asperse Saint Austin and his followers.
From S. Austin Doctor Heylin takes a leap to the Councel of Trent, but I shall not so do; The transactions concerning Godescalk the Monk must stay us a while, because they are somewhat differently related by learned Men. Godescalk is by Vossius, from Hincmar, described to be one of a fierce mind, Epist. ad Nicol. Papum.impatient of rest, a lover of Novelty; with Rabanus Maurus also, he goes for no better than a Sciolist: But these characters are the less to be regarded, because drawn by the hands of two professed Enemies, and because Walafridus Strabo ▪ a Disciple of this Rabanus Maurus, and as Flacc. Illi. saith, his Notary, gives us a very high and large commendation of Godes. both as to Life and Learning; which commendation is to be seen in Bishop Ushers Historia Godes. pag. 38, 39. This Godes. was one that had much read the Fathers, especially S. Austin, with whom he did perfectly agree as to the Doctrine of Praedestination, as may be seen in his Confessions, first published by the incomparable Usher; but some not regarding so much what his opinion truly was, as what were the consequences which they thought did flow from it, charge him with blasphemy, as the Massilians of old did S. Austin. Rabanus Maurus by the command of Lewis King of Germany, called a Synod of Bishops and Abbots at Moguntia, in which Godescalk is condemned; but condemned for that which he seems not to be guilty of, as if he had held and maintained that good men were inevitably pre-ordained to a life of happiness, wicked men inevitably pre-ordained to a life of endless misery, and that it profiteth not the wicked if they be converted, nor hurteth the Godly if they sin. In this Synod Trithemius tells us, that he recalled and revoked his errour; but if he had so done, then would not both Rabanus and Hincmarus charge him, which yet full oft they do, with obstinacy. However at this Synod, Godescalk was banished Germany, and made to promise not to return, and sent to his own Bishop, i. e. the Archbishop of Rhemes; for unto his Jurisdiction did the Monastery of Orbez (out of which Godescalk came) belong: The Epistle of Rabanus to Hincmarus signifying this, is to be seen in Historia Godes. pag. 46. One would think at this Synod Godescalk met with hard measure, but harder was measured out to him in the Synod held in the Palace of Carisacum: for being heard a second time, it is decreed that he should be divested of his Sacerdotal Office, if ever he were truly a Priest, (which those Fathers seem not willing to acknowledge, because forsooth he was ordained by Rigbold, Suffragan of Rhemes, the Bishop of Sueston not consulted:) yea, that he should be whipped notwithstanding his Age, and confined for ever to his Cell. But what was all this while become of the Augustinian spirit? Was all the World so soon become Pelagian? In no wise. Remigius as much appeared for the justification of Godescalk, as did either Rabanus or Hincmarus for his condemnation. The Church of Lyons stoutly censureth and confuteth the decrees of this Carisiacan Synod; and whereas one Iohannes Scotus Erigena, a good Philosopher but no great Divine, had written a Book against the cause of Godescalk, consisting of nineteen Chapters, one Florus a Deacon of the Church of Lyons answered him. In the year 855 a Councel was held at Valens, wherein Canons were made diametrically opposite to the determinations of the Carisiacan meeting, and to the propositions of Scotus Erigena. Learned Baronius mistaking the Phrase Scotorum pultes, thinks that this Valentinian Synod was called against some wandring Scotchmen, of which Godescalk was chief, and that the opinion of Godescalk was there again condemned: whereas we there find Scotus his capitula condemned, as containing Diaboli commentum, rather than argumentum aliquod fidei. Of the four capitula of Hincmarus indeeed, the Synod speaks somewhat more mildly and favourably, but yet so as to ascribe to them inutilitatem, vel etiam noxi…tatem, & errorem contrarium veritati. When these Valentian Fathers come to speak of grace and free-will, these are their words: Item de gratia per quam salvantur credentes, & sine qua rationalis creatura nunquam beate vixit, & de libero arbitrio per peccatum in primo homine infirmato, sed per gratiam Domini Iesu in fidelibus ejus redintegrato & sanato, id ipsum constantissime & fide plena fatemur, quod Sanctissimi Patres auctoritatem sacrarum literarum secuti nobis tenendum reliquerunt, quod Africana, quod Arausica Synodus professa est. In this Synod were present the Bishops of three Provinces, in number fourteen, though as the Preface plainly intimates, Ebbo Bishop of Gratianopolis had the chief hand in compiling the Canons. Nor had the great Volumn which Hincmar made against these Canons any great effect; for in the year 859 a Councel being called at Lingon, the Canons of the Valentine Synod are again confirmed and ordered to be promulged for the instruction of the Lords People, those words onelyonly wherein express mention was made of Hincmars four capitula being, to avoid offence, left out.
But it is objected in Gods Love to Mankind, that in this very Valentine Synod it is affirmed, that the wicked do therefore perish, not because they could not, but because they would not be good, and by their own fault original or actual also remained in the masse of perdition: Yea, the Fathers of that Councel denounce Anathema's to those that held, that men are so predestinated to evil, as that they cannot be otherwise: That any should be predestinated to evil by the power of God so as he cannot be otherwise, we do not only not believe, but also if there be any that will believe so great an evil, we with all detestation denounce them accursed, as the Arau…ican Councel also doth. And at the Councel of Arles assembled against the Pelagians, these Anathemaes were denounced, Cursed be the man that shall say that the Man that perished might not have been saved; and again, Cursed be the man that shall say that a Vessel of dishonour may not rise to be a Vessel of honour.
For Answer, It were easie to reject those Anathemaes of the Councel of Arles as spurious, and forged by Faustus that Arch-Semi-pelagian: but we need not trouble our selves so to do, for there is nothing in any or all these passages that may not stand with absolute reprobation; for absolute negative reprobation, preterition, or non-election, may well consist with a possibility of avoiding sin and damnation, as all both Super and Sublapsarians grant, in the Non-elect Angels and in the Protoplast, in whom they are wont to say, that all and every person, received the posse stare and a posse salvari. A man that of impenitent becomes penitent, may be said to rise from being a Vessel of dishonour, to be a Vessel of honour: But never did any of non-elect become elect; never did any who was under a non-predestination unto effectual and infallible means of eternal life, procure to be under a predestination unto effectual and infall…ble means of eternal life.