Letters 226.1–227.1

If, when there are no questions from opponents, the inquiries of the studious are usually welcome, so that they may learn even things that could be unknown without danger, I think the diligence of our report will be the more welcome, since, in pointing out certain things contrary to the truth according to the arguments of some, it seeks to provide, through Your Holiness's counsel, not so much for itself as for those who are troubled and who trouble others, my lord most blessed, father to be longed for with all affection and to be greatly revered in Christ.

These, then, are the things being aired at Marseilles and in some other places in Gaul. They say it is new and useless for preaching that some are said to be chosen according to purpose in such a way that they can neither grasp nor hold it unless the will to believe is given them. They think all the force of preaching is excluded if nothing is said to remain in men that preaching may arouse. They agree that every man perished in Adam and that no one can be freed from that by his own choice; but they assert that it is in keeping with the truth and suited to preaching that, when the opportunity of obtaining salvation is announced to those who are prostrate and will never rise by their own strength, they should, by the merit of willing and believing that they can be healed of their disease, obtain both the increase of faith itself and the effect of their whole healing. For the rest, they agree that no one can suffice for himself to begin, let alone complete, any work; for they do not think it should be counted as any work of their healing that each sick person, terrified and suppliant, wishes to be healed. For in the saying, “Believe and you will be saved,” they say one thing is demanded and another offered, so that, on account of what is demanded, if it is rendered, what is offered is then granted. Hence they think it follows that faith is to be shown by the one to whose nature this has been granted by the Creator's will, and they think no nature so depraved or extinguished that it ought not or cannot will to be healed. So a man is either healed of his sickness, or, if he is unwilling, punished with his sickness. Nor, they say, is grace denied if such a will is said to precede, one that only seeks so great a physician but can itself do nothing. For they want testimonies such as “As he has apportioned to each the measure of faith,” and the like, to mean that he who has begun to will is helped, not that he is given the willing too, since others, equally guilty, would be excluded from this gift, who could likewise be freed if the will to believe, which is given to the equally unworthy, were given to them likewise. But if, they say, it is said that such a will has remained in all, by which one can either despise or obey, they think the account of the rejected and the elect is thereby settled, since each is credited with the merit of his own will.

And when they are asked why the gospel is preached to some or in some places and not to others, or is preached now, when once it was not preached to almost all nations, as now it is not to some, they say this belongs to divine foreknowledge: that the truth was or is announced at that time, in that place and to those people when and where it was foreknown that it would be believed. And they claim to prove this not only from the testimonies of other Catholics but also from an earlier discussion of Your Holiness, although there you taught the same grace with no less clarity of truth. Such is what Your Holiness said in the question against Porphyry on the time of the Christian religion: that Christ chose to appear to men and to have his teaching preached among them when and where he knew there were those who would believe in him. Or this, from the book on the Letter to the Romans: “You say to me, then: ‘Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?’” To this inquiry, you say, he answers “so that we may understand that to spiritual men, who do not live according to the earthly man, the first merits of faith and impiety may be clear: how God by foreknowledge chooses those who will believe and condemns unbelievers, neither choosing the former for their works nor condemning the latter for their works, but granting to the faith of the former that they work well, and hardening the impiety of the latter by abandoning them, so that they work evil.” And again, earlier in the same book: “All are equal before merit, and in things in every way equal there can be no talk of choice. But since the Holy Spirit is given only to believers, God does not indeed choose works, which he himself bestows when he gives the Holy Spirit so that we may do good through love; yet he does choose faith, because unless each one believes and remains in the will to receive, he does not receive the gift of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured in so that he can do good. So he does not choose in foreknowledge anyone's works, which he himself is going to give, but he chooses faith in foreknowledge, so that he chose the very one he foreknew would believe, to give him the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might also attain eternal life. For the apostle says: ‘It is the same God who works all things in all.’ But nowhere is it said, ‘God believes all things in all’; for that we believe is ours, but what we do well is his,” and the rest in the same work. They declare that they accept and approve these passages as agreeing with the truth of the gospel.

For the rest, they contend that foreknowledge and predestination or purpose mean only that God foreknew, predestined or purposed to choose those who were going to believe. And they say that of this faith one cannot say, “What do you have that you did not receive?”, since it has remained in the same nature, although vitiated, that was first given healthy and whole. As for Your Holiness's statement that no one perseveres unless he has received the power to persevere, they accept it only so far as to say that it is granted to those to whom it is given when their own choice, however feeble, has preceded. They assert that choice is free only to this extent, that it can will or refuse to admit the medicine. For the rest, they too declare that they abhor and condemn anyone who thinks any strength remains in anyone by which he could advance to health. But they do not want this perseverance preached in such a way that it cannot either be earned by supplication or lost by obstinacy. Nor do they want to be led to the uncertainty of God's will when, as they think, the beginning of the will, such as it is, is evident for obtaining or admitting. The testimony you cited, “He was snatched away lest wickedness change his understanding,” they declare must be set aside as not canonical. Hence they understand that foreknowledge thus: that people are to be understood as foreknown on account of their future faith; and that to no one is such perseverance given that he is not permitted to fall away, but only such that he can fail and weaken by his own will.

They assert that the custom of exhorting is useless if nothing is said to remain in man that rebuke can arouse. They admit they say that this is in nature in such a way that, by the very fact that the truth is preached to someone ignorant of it, it must be credited to the benefit of present grace. “For if,” they say, “people are so predestined to either side that no one can pass from the one to the other, what is the point of so much insistent rebuke from outside, unless from the man himself there arises, if not full faith, at least the grief of a weakness pricked to the heart, or a horror at the danger of death shown him? For if one cannot fear what he is threatened with except by a will that is received, he is not to be blamed for not willing now, but the blame lies in him and with him who once so refused that he deserved to incur that condemnation with his descendants, so that he would never desire what is right but always what is evil. But if there is some grief, of whatever kind, that arises at the exhortation of the one rebuking, this,” they say, “is the very reason why one is rejected and another taken up; and so there is no need to fix sides to which nothing may be added or taken away.”

Next, they take it ill that grace, whether that given then to the first man or that given now to all, is so divided that he received perseverance (“not one by which it came about that he persevered, but one without which he could not persevere through free choice; but now to the saints predestined to the kingdom through grace not such a help to perseverance is given, but such that perseverance itself is given them, not only so that without this gift they cannot persevere, but also so that by this gift they cannot but persevere”). These words of Your Holiness move them so much that they say a kind of despair is presented to men. “For if,” they say, “Adam was helped in such a way that he could both stand in righteousness and turn from righteousness, and now the saints are helped in such a way that they cannot turn away, since they have received a perseverance of will such that they cannot will otherwise, or some are so abandoned that they either do not come or, if they come, also go back,” then they say the usefulness of exhortation and threat belonged to that will which had the free power both of persisting and of desisting, not to this one to which unwillingness for righteousness is joined by inevitable necessity, except for those who are so created together with those condemned with the whole mass that they were exempted by the grace of the one who frees. Hence they want the nature of all to differ from the first man in this alone: that grace helped him, with the strength of his will intact, when he did not will, as without it he could not persevere, while these, whose strength is lost and ruined, it not only raises up when they lie prostrate if only they believe, but also supports as they walk. For the rest, they contend that whatever has been given to the predestined can be both lost and kept by their own will; which would be false if they thought it true that some have received perseverance such that they cannot but persevere.

Hence also they equally do not accept that the number of those to be chosen and rejected is fixed, and they do not take the interpretation of that saying which you put forward, but hold that he wills all men without exception to be saved, not only those who will belong to the number of the saints, but absolutely all, so that no one is excepted. Nor, they say, should we fear the statement that some perish against his will; for, they say, just as he does not will that anyone sin or abandon righteousness, and yet righteousness is constantly abandoned and sins are committed against his will, so he wills to save all men and yet not all men are saved. They also think the testimonies of Scripture you cited about Saul and David do not bear on the question, which concerns exhortation; and others they refer to the grace by which each is helped after he wills, or to the calling itself, which is granted to the unworthy. They claim to show this both from those passages of your works and from others which it would be long to go through.

They do not allow the case of infants to be brought forward as an example for adults. They say Your Holiness too touched on it only so far as to wish it left uncertain and to prefer that their punishments be doubted; you remember you put it in the third book On Free Choice in a way that could give them this occasion. They do the same with the books of others who have authority in the Church, which, as Your Holiness sees, can help the opponents not a little unless greater or at least equal authorities are brought forward by us; for your most prudent goodness knows how many more there are in the Church who are held in an opinion, or moved from it, by the authority of names. In sum, when we are all worn out, their argument, or rather complaint, comes to this, and even those who do not dare to reject this definition agree with them in saying: “What need was there to trouble the hearts of so many less intelligent people with the uncertainty of such a discussion? For,” they say, “the Catholic faith was defended no less usefully without this definition for so many years by so many writers in so many earlier books, both yours and others', against other heretics and especially against the Pelagians.”

These things, my father, and endlessly many more, I would have preferred, to confess my highest wish, to bring you myself; or, since I did not deserve that, at least to send you, after a longer time, everything that troubles them, collected, so that I might hear how far whatever is said against this doctrine ought to be refuted or, if that cannot be done, tolerated. But since neither happened as I wished, I preferred to send these things summarized as best I could rather than keep entirely silent about such great opposition from certain people. Some of them are persons of such rank that by church custom laymen must show them the highest reverence. We have taken care, with God's help, to observe this in such a way that, when it was needed, we did not keep silent about what the smallness of our strength suggested in defense of this question. But now I have set these things down in summary, as a reminder, as far as the haste of the bearer allowed. It is for your holy prudence to see what must be done so that the determination of such and so great men may be overcome or moderated. I think it will do little good now for you to give them reasons unless authority is added which untiringly contentious hearts cannot get past. But I certainly must not keep silent about this: they say they admire Your Holiness in all your deeds and words except this. It will be for you to decide how their opposition on this point is to be borne. And do not be surprised if in this letter I have added some things, or put them differently, which, I think, I had not said in my earlier letter; for such is now their position, apart from things I may have passed over through haste or forgetfulness.

I ask that we may have the books you are preparing on your whole work, when they are published, especially so that by their authority, if anything in your writings displeases you, we may set it apart, no longer fearful of the dignity of your name. We also do not have the book On Grace and Free Choice; it remains that we may receive it, since we trust it is useful for the question. I do not want Your Holiness to think that I write this as if I doubted what you have now published. Let my punishment be enough for me: exiled from the delight of your presence, where I was nourished at your wholesome breasts, I am tormented not only by your absence but also by the obstinacy of some who not only reject what is plain but also criticize what they have not understood. For the rest, I am so free of this suspicion that I rather think my own weakness, by which I bear such people with too little patience, is noteworthy. How you judge that this should be dealt with, as I said, I leave to your wisdom. For I believed it belonged to me, for the love I owe to Christ and to you, not to keep silent about what is coming into question. Whatever you will or can do for the grace that we, small and great, admire in you, we will receive most gratefully as decreed by an authority most dear and most revered to us. Since, with the bearer pressing, I feared, conscious of my strength, that I could not send everything, or even this, worthily enough, I arranged with a man distinguished in character, eloquence and learning to set out in his own letter as much as he could gather. I have taken care to send it joined to this; for he is one who, even apart from this need, would be judged worthy of Your Holiness's acquaintance. The holy deacon Leontius, your devotee, greets you warmly together with my parents. May the Lord Christ deign to grant your fatherhood, mindful of me, to his Church for many years, my lord father. [And below:] Let Your Holiness know that my brother, chiefly on whose account we left there, has with his wife by mutual consent vowed perfect continence to God. So we ask Your Holiness to deign to pray that the Lord may confirm and guard this in them.

Brother Paul is here, safe and sound; he brings a favorable outcome of his affairs; the Lord will grant that it may be the last. He greets you warmly and tells joyful news of Gabinianus: that, delivered by God's mercy from that case of his, he is not only a Christian but even one of the faithful, a very good one, baptized this last Easter, having in heart and mouth the grace he received. When shall I express how much I long for him? But you know how I love him. The chief physician Dioscorus too is one of the Christian faithful, having received grace at the same time. Hear how, too; for that stiff neck and tongue could not have been tamed without some prodigy. His daughter, in whom alone he found rest, fell ill and came to complete despair of her temporal health, her father himself giving her up. It is said, and it is certain, since Count Peregrinus, a praiseworthy man and a good Christian, who was baptized with them at the same time, told me so even before brother Paul's return, it is said, then, that the old man, at last turning to implore Christ's mercy, bound himself by a vow to become a Christian if he saw her well. It happened. But he put off fulfilling what he had vowed. But the hand was still raised high. For he was suddenly struck with blindness, and at once it came to his mind why. He cried out, confessing, and vowed again that if his sight were restored he would fulfill what he had vowed. He recovered it; he fulfilled it. And still the hand was raised high. He had not learned the Creed, or perhaps had refused to learn it and had excused himself on the ground that he could not. God knows. But now, after all the festivities of his reception, he was struck with paralysis in many and almost all his limbs; then, warned in a dream, he confessed in writing that he had been told this had happened to him because he had not recited the Creed. After that confession the use of all his limbs was restored except his tongue alone. Yet, still in that same trial, he admitted in writing that he had learned the Creed and so now held it in memory; and all that frivolity has been wiped out of him which, as you know, greatly disgraced a certain natural kindness of his and made him, in his mockery of Christians, very sacrilegious. What shall I say to the Lord, but let us sing a hymn and exalt him above all forever? Amen.