Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][merged small]

chose of Austin's, together with an addition of many others, will be given under the following Numbers in proof of this point. These early writers did indeed say many things incautiously, and without guard, concerning free will, which are not easily reconcileable to other expressions of theirs, to which they were led by the opposition they made to the errors of the Valentinians, Baña lidians, Marcionites, Manicbees, and others, who held two different natures in man; that some were naturally good, and others naturally evil, and neither of them could poslibly be ocherwise. Now it was common with the Fathers, that when they set themselves against one error they generally went into the other excreme; this is observed even of Austin himself, “ That when he wrote against Arrius he seemed to favour Sabelli, us; when against Sabellius, Arrius; when against Pelagius, the Manichees; when against the Manichees, Pelagius.Moreover, Vofpuso has this to say on their behalf, that “ those holy martyrs, and other famous doctors, when they ascribe to man freedom to that which is good, either creat only of things natural and moral ; or if at any time they speak of works of piecy, and such as belong to God, they consider the will of

[ocr errors]

b Rivet. de patrum authoritate, c. 11. § 4. p. 68. £ Hift. Pelag. 1. 3. Par. 1. p. 282.

man in common, and indefinitely, not diftinguishing what he can do by the strength of nature, and what by the strength of grace, but only attributing that nature to man, by which, before grace, he can do, or not do , moral good; and after strength received by grace can believe or not believe, do, or omit works of piety; contrary to which were the opinion of the Bardesanists, Manichees, and the like. If we interpret the Fathers otherwise, adds he, we must not only make them contradict one another, but themselves also. Besides, we shall make it appear in the following Numbers by a variety of reftimonies, that they held the weakness and disability of man, without the grace of God, to do any thing that is spiritually good; yea, even that is morally so and that the will of man is sinful, and the root of fin; and that it is in a state of servitude and bondage to fin, until released by the grace

of God; and as to the necessity of the grace

of God to the performance of every good action, vous afferts and proves what follows, that “the Latin writers who were before the times of Pelagius, clearly acknowledged the necessity of grace; both the Africans, as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Arnobius; and the Italians, French, and others, as Lactantius, Hilary, and Ambrose;

[ocr errors]

# Ib. Thef, 1. p. 267,

nor

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

nor can any one be produced who thought otherwise.” Again; “They who deny that the Greek Fatbers understood the doctrine of the necefficy of grace, do chem a very great injury, since they often most plainly affert ic." The citations made by him in proof of this, with many others, will be given hereafcer. I conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinenfis', Whoever, says he, before the profane Pelagius, presumed that there was such a power in free will, az to think the grace of God unnecessary to help it through every act is things that are good? Who before his precious ducisse Caeleftius denied, that all mankint az guing of Adam's tranfgrefron?

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

EUL
CLEMENS ZSUV

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

man in common, and indefinitely, not diftinguishing what he can do by the strength of nature, and what by the strength of grace, but only attributing that nature to man, by which, before grace, he can do, or not do moral good; and after strength received by grace can believe or not believe, do, or omit works of piety; contrary to which were the opinion of the Bardesanists, Manichees, and the like. If we interpret the Fathers otherwise, adds he, we must not only make them contradict one another, but themselves also. Besides, we shall make it appear in the following Numbers by a variety of testimonies, that they held the weakness and disability of man, without the grace of God, to do any thing that is spiritually good ; yea, even that is morally so and that the will of man is finful, and the root of fin; and that it is in a state of servitude and bondage to fin, until released by

of God; and as to the necessity of the grace of God to the performance of every good action, Voffius afferts and proves what follows, that “the Latin writers who were before the times of Pelagius, clearly acknowledged the necessity of

grace ;

both the Africans, as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Arnobius; and the Italians, French, and others, as Lactantius, Hilary, and Ambrose;

[ocr errors]

the grace

Ib. Thef, 1. p. 267.

nor

r

nor can any one be produced who thought
otherwise.” Again, “They who deny that
the Greek Fathers understood the doctrine
of the necessity of grace, do them a very
great injury, since they often most plainly
assert it.” The citations made by him in
proof of this, wich many others, will be gi-
ven hereafter. I conclude with the words
of Vincentius Lirinenfis', “ Whoever, says
he, before the profane Pelagius, presumed
that there was such a power in free will, as
to think the grace of God unnecessary to
help it through every act in things that are
good? Who before his prodigious disciple
Caeleftius denied, that all mankind are guilty 2
of Adam's transgression ?

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Clement was so far from afcribing voca

tion, conversion, or sanctification, to the will of man, that he always considers it as the effect and produce of the will of God. His epistle to the Corinthians begins thus“, “ The church of God which dwells at Rome to the church of God which dwells at Ce.

e Ib. Thes. 2. p. 272.
f Commonitor. i. adv. Haeres, c. 34.
· Clement. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. p. 2.

04

rinth,

« PreviousContinue »