On the Gift of Perseverance 8–11

“But why,” he says, “is the grace of God not given according to men's merits?” I answer: because God is merciful. “Why, then,” he says, “not to all?” And here I answer: because God is judge. And therefore grace is given by him freely; and by his just judgment on others it is shown what grace confers on those to whom it is given. Let us not, then, be ungrateful that, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, the merciful God sets free so many from so deserved a perdition that, if he set none free from it, he would not be unjust. For from one man all were judged to go into a condemnation not unjust but just. Let him, then, who is set free love grace; let him who is not set free acknowledge what is due. If in remitting a debt goodness is understood, and in exacting it equity, iniquity is nowhere found with God. “But why,” he says, “in the one and the same case, not only of little children but even of twins, so different a judgment?” Is it not a similar question, why in a different case the same judgment? Let us recall, then, those labourers in the vineyard who worked the whole day, and those who worked one hour: certainly the case of the labour spent is different, and yet the judgment in paying the wage is the same. Did the murmurers here hear anything from the householder but, “This is my will”? Such was his generosity toward some that there was no iniquity toward others. And these indeed are both among the good; yet, as far as justice and grace are concerned, to the guilty man who is condemned it can rightly be said concerning the guilty man who is set free, “Take what is yours and go; but I will to give this man what is not owed. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is your eye evil because I am good?” Here, if he says, “Why not to me too?”, he will rightly hear, “O man, who are you to answer back to God?” Him you certainly see as a most kind giver in one of you, but in you as a most just exactor, yet in neither as unjust. For since he would be just even if he punished both, he who is set free has reason to give thanks; he who is condemned has nothing to find fault with. “But if,” he says, “it was fitting that by not condemning all he should show what was due to all, and so commend his grace more gratefully to the vessels of mercy, why in the same case will he punish me rather than him, or set him free rather than me?” I do not say. If you ask why: because I confess that I do not find what to say. If you ask why this too: because in this matter, as his wrath is just and his mercy great, so his judgments are inscrutable. Let him go on further and say, “Why did he not give to some who worshipped him in good faith to persevere to the end?” Why do you think, except that he does not lie who says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have remained with us”? Are there, then, two natures of men? Far from it! If there were two natures, there would be no grace; for free deliverance would be given to no one if what was due to nature were rendered. But it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to have received perseverance to the end. But God has judged it better to mix some who will not persevere with the fixed number of his saints, so that those for whom security in the temptation of this life is not good may not be able to be secure. For what the Apostle says restrains many from deadly pride: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” He who falls, falls by his own will; and he who stands, stands by the will of God. “For God is able to make him stand”: not, then, he himself, but God. Yet it is good not to be high-minded, but to fear. And each one either falls or stands in his own thought. But, as the Apostle says, which I mentioned in the former book, “We are not sufficient to think anything as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.” Following him, blessed Ambrose too dares to say: “For our heart and our thoughts are not in our power.” Everyone who is humbly and truly godly feels that this is most true. Ambrose said this speaking in the book which he wrote On Flight from the World, teaching that this world is to be fled not with the body but with the heart, which he argued cannot be done except with God's help. For he says: “Our talk is frequently of fleeing this world; and would that the disposition were as cautious and careful as the talk is easy! But, what is worse, the allurement of earthly desires frequently creeps in, and the pouring in of vanities occupies the mind, so that what you strive to avoid, you think about and turn over in your mind. This is difficult for a man to guard against, but impossible to throw off. Finally, the prophet testifies that the thing is more a matter of prayer than of accomplishment, saying, ‘Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to covetousness.’ For our heart and our thoughts are not in our power, which, poured in unexpectedly, confuse the mind and soul and draw them elsewhere than you have proposed: they call back to worldly things, insert things of the world, thrust in things of pleasure, weave in allurements, and at the very time when we prepare to lift up the mind, we are filled with vain thoughts and mostly cast down to earthly things.” It is not, then, in the power of men but of God that men have the power to become sons of God. For they receive it from him who gives the human heart godly thoughts, through which it may have the faith that works through love; for taking up and holding this good, and advancing in it perseveringly to the end, we are not sufficient to think anything as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, in whose power are our heart and our thoughts.

Of two little children, then, equally bound by original sin, why this one is taken up and that one left; and of two ungodly persons already advanced in age, why this one is called in such a way that he follows the one who calls, while that one is either not called or not called in such a way: the judgments of God are inscrutable. But of two godly persons, why to this one perseverance to the end is given and to that one not given: the judgments of God are more inscrutable still. Yet this ought to be most certain to believers, that the one is of the predestined and the other is not. “For if they had been of us,” says one of the predestined, who had drunk this secret from the Lord's breast, “they would certainly have remained with us.” What does it mean, I ask, “They were not of us; for if they had been, they would certainly have remained with us”? Were not both created by God, both born of Adam, both made from earth, and had they not received souls of one and the same nature from him who said, “I have made every breath”? Finally, had not both been called, and followed the one who called; were not both justified from ungodliness, and both renewed through the washing of regeneration? But if he heard these things, he who certainly knew what he was saying could answer and say: “These things are true; according to all these they were of us; yet according to some other distinction they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have remained with us.” What, after all, is this distinction? The books of God lie open; let us not turn away our gaze. Divine Scripture cries out; let us lend our hearing. They were not of them, because they were not called according to his purpose; they were not chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not obtained an inheritance in him; they were not predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and would without doubt have remained with them. For, not to say how possible it is for God to convert to his faith the wills of men that are turned away and opposed, and to work in their hearts so that they yield to no adversities and do not depart from him overcome by any temptation, since he can also do what the Apostle says, not permit them to be tempted beyond what they are able: not to say this, God, foreknowing that they would fall, could certainly have taken them from this life before it happened. Or are we to return to discussing still how absurdly it is said that dead men are judged even for those sins which God foreknew they would have committed if they had lived? This is so repugnant to Christian, indeed to any human, sense that one is ashamed even to refute it. For why should it not be said that the gospel itself has been preached, and is still preached, in vain, with so much labour and suffering of the saints, if men could be judged even without hearing the gospel according to the obstinacy or obedience which God foreknew they would have had if they had heard? Nor would Tyre and Sidon be condemned, though more leniently than those cities in which, though they did not believe, wonderful signs were done by the Lord Christ; since, if they had been done in them, they would have repented in ashes and sackcloth, as the words of truth have it; in which words of his the Lord Jesus shows us a deeper mystery of predestination. For if we are asked why such great miracles were done among those who, seeing them, would not believe, and were not done among those who would believe if they saw them, what shall we answer? Shall we say what I said in that book in which I answered certain six questions of the pagans, without prejudice, however, to other causes which the wise can trace out? For, as you know, when it was asked why Christ came after so long a time, I said that in those times and places in which his gospel was not preached, he foreknew that all would be such, at his preaching, as many were in his bodily presence, who would not believe in him even when the dead were raised by him. Again a little later in the same book and in the same question I said: “What wonder, if Christ knew that in former ages the world was so full of unbelievers that he rightly did not will to be preached to those whom he foreknew would believe neither his words nor his miracles?” This we certainly cannot say of Tyre and Sidon; and in them we recognize that these divine judgments belong to those causes of predestination without prejudice to which hidden causes I said that I then gave those answers. For it is easy to blame the unbelief of the Jews, arising from free will, who would not believe when such great miracles had been done among them. The Lord too reproves and convicts them, saying: “Woe to you, Chorazin and Bethsaida; for if the miracles had been done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes.” But can we say that the Tyrians and Sidonians too would have refused to believe if such miracles had been done among them, or would not have believed if they were done, when the Lord himself testifies of them that they would have done penance of great humility if those signs of divine power had been done in them? And yet in the day of judgment they will be punished, though with a lesser punishment than those cities which would not believe when miracles were done among them. For the Lord goes on to say, “Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.” These, then, will be punished more severely, those more leniently; but still they will be punished. Further, if the dead are judged even according to the deeds they would have done if they had lived, then certainly, since these would have been believers if the gospel had been preached to them with such great miracles, they are certainly not to be punished; yet they will be punished; it is false, therefore, that the dead are judged even according to what they would have done if the gospel had reached them while living. And if this is false, there is no reason to say of infants who perish dying without baptism that this happens to them by this merit, that God foreknew that, if they had lived and the gospel had been preached to them, they would have heard it unbelievingly. It remains, then, that they are held bound by original sin alone, and for this alone go into condemnation; since we see that others with the same case are given regeneration only by God's free grace; and that by his hidden but just judgment, since there is no iniquity with God, some who are going to perish by living very wickedly even after baptism are kept in this life until they perish, who would not perish if bodily death, coming before their fall, came to their help. For no dead man is judged on the good or evil he would have done if he had not died; otherwise the Tyrians and Sidonians would not pay penalties according to what they did, but rather, according to what they would have done if those gospel miracles had been done among them, they would obtain salvation through great repentance and faith in Christ.

A certain Catholic disputant of no mean repute expounded this place of the Gospel by saying that the Lord foreknew that the Tyrians and Sidonians would later have withdrawn from the faith after they had believed when miracles were done among them, and that rather out of mercy he did not do them there; since they would become liable to a heavier punishment if they abandoned the faith they had held than if they had never held it at all. In this opinion of a learned and very acute man, what points may still rightly be examined, what concern is it of mine to say now, since even it supports what we are dealing with? For if the Lord out of compassion did not do among them the miracles through which they could have become believers, lest they be punished more severely when they afterwards became unbelievers, as he foreknew they would, it is shown clearly and plainly enough that no one of the dead is judged for those sins which he was foreknown to be going to commit, if he is in some way helped not to commit them; just as Christ is said, if that opinion is true, to have helped the Tyrians and Sidonians, whom he preferred not to come to the faith rather than to depart from the faith by a much graver crime, which he had foreseen they would commit if they had come. Although if it is asked, “Why was it not brought about rather that they should believe, and that this should be granted them, that they should depart this life before they abandoned the faith?”, I do not know what can be answered. For he who says that it was granted as a benefit to those who would abandon the faith not to begin to have what they would forsake with graver ungodliness indicates clearly enough that a man is not judged by what he is foreknown to have been going to do evilly, if by some benefit it is provided that he does not do it. Provision was made, then, for him too who was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding. But why provision was not made for the Tyrians and Sidonians in such a way that they should believe and be snatched away lest wickedness should change their understanding, perhaps he would answer who chose to solve this question in this way; but I, as far as concerns what I am doing, see that it is enough that, according to that opinion too, it is shown that men are not judged for what they have not done, even if they were foreseen to be going to do it. Although, as I said, one is ashamed even to refute this opinion, by which it is thought that sins are punished in the dying or the dead which they were foreknown to be going to commit if they lived, lest we too should seem to have thought it of some weight; which we preferred to restrain by argument rather than pass over in silence.

Accordingly, as the Apostle says, “It is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”; who both helps the little children whom he will, even though they neither will nor run, whom he chose in Christ before the foundation of the world, intending to give them grace freely, that is, with no merits of theirs, either of faith or of works, going before; and does not help those older persons whom he foresaw would believe his miracles if they had been done among them, whom he does not will to help, concerning whom in his predestination he judged otherwise, hiddenly indeed, but justly. For there is no iniquity with God; but “his judgments are inscrutable and his ways unsearchable”; but “all the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.” Unsearchable, then, is the mercy by which he has mercy on whom he will, with no merits of his going before; and unsearchable the truth by which he hardens whom he will, with merits of his indeed going before, but often merits held in common with him on whom he has mercy. As of two twins, of whom one is taken up and one left, the outcome is unequal, the merits common; in whom, however, one is set free by the great goodness of God in such a way that the other is condemned with no iniquity of God's. For is there iniquity with God? Far from it! But his ways are unsearchable. Let us, then, believe without doubting his mercy in those who are set free and his truth in those who are punished; and let us not try to search the inscrutable or trace the untraceable. For out of the mouth of infants and sucklings he perfects his praise; so that what we see in those whose deliverance is preceded by no good merits of theirs, and in those whose condemnation is preceded only by original merits common to both, we should by no means hesitate to believe takes place in adults too; that is, not thinking either that grace is given to anyone according to his merits, or that anyone is punished except for his merits, whether those who are set free and those who are punished have equal or unequal evil cases; so that he who thinks he stands may take heed lest he fall, and he who glories may glory not in himself but in the Lord. But why, as you write, do men “not allow the case of little children to be brought forward as an example for adults,” men who do not doubt, against the Pelagians, that there is original sin, which entered into the world through one man, and that from one all went into condemnation? The Manichaeans too do not accept this; they not only hold none of the scriptures of the Old Testament in any authority, but also accept those that belong to the New Testament in such a way that by a privilege of their own, or rather a sacrilege, they take what they will and reject what they will. Against them I was arguing in the books On Free Choice, from which these men think we should be held bound. For that reason I did not wish to solve fully the very laborious questions that came up, lest the work be too long, where the authority of the divine testimonies did not help me against such perverse men. And I could, as I did, whichever of these was true, which I set down without deciding, nevertheless conclude by sure reasoning that in all of them God is to be praised, with no necessity to believe that, as they would have it, two co-eternal substances of good and evil are mixed together. Then in the first book of the Retractations, a work of mine which you have not yet read, when I came to revising those same books, that is, On Free Choice, I spoke thus: “In these books,” I said, “so many things were discussed that some questions that came up, which I either could not unravel or which required a long discussion at the time, were deferred in such a way that, from either side, or from all sides of those questions, where it was not clear what better agreed with the truth, our reasoning nevertheless was brought to the conclusion that, whichever of them was true, God was believed, or even shown, to be praised. For that discussion was undertaken on account of those who deny that the origin of evil is derived from the free choice of the will, and who contend that, if this is so, God, the creator of all natures, is to be blamed; wishing in this way, according to the error of their ungodliness (for they are Manichaeans), to introduce a certain unchangeable nature of evil co-eternal with God.” Again some time later, in another place: “Then it was said,” I said, “from which misery, justly inflicted on sinners, the grace of God sets free; because man could fall of his own accord, that is, by free choice, but could not also rise; to which misery of just condemnation belong ignorance and difficulty, which every man suffers from the beginning of his birth; nor is anyone set free from this evil except by the grace of God. The Pelagians will not have this misery descend from just condemnation, denying original sin; although even if ignorance and difficulty were the natural beginnings of man, not even so would God be blamed, but praised, as we argued in the same third book. That discussion is to be held against the Manichaeans, who do not accept the holy scriptures of the Old Testament, in which original sin is narrated, and contend with detestable impudence that whatever is read of it in the apostolic letters was inserted by corrupters of the Scriptures, as though it had not been said by the apostles. But against the Pelagians what both Scriptures commend must be defended, which they profess to accept.” This I said in the first book of the Retractations when I revised the books On Free Choice. Nor indeed are these the only things said by me there about those books; but many others too, which I thought it long and unnecessary to insert in this work to you, as I think you too will judge when you have read them all. Although, then, in the third book On Free Choice I argued about little children in such a way that, even if what the Pelagians say were true, that ignorance and difficulty, without which no man is born, are the beginnings, not the punishments, of nature, the Manichaeans would nevertheless be defeated, who will have two co-eternal natures, of good and of evil: is the faith on that account to be called into doubt or abandoned which the Catholic Church defends against the Pelagians themselves, which asserts that there is original sin, whose guilt, contracted by generation, is to be loosed by regeneration? And if these men too confess this with us, so that together in this cause we may destroy the error of the Pelagians, why do they think it should be doubted that God, to the little children to whom he gives his grace through the sacrament of baptism, rescues them from the power of darkness and transfers them into the kingdom of the Son of his love? In that he gives it to some and does not give it to others, why will they not sing to the Lord of mercy and judgment? But why it is given to these rather than to those, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” Who can search the inscrutable? Who can trace the untraceable?