On the Predestination of the Saints

We know that the Apostle said in the Epistle to the Philippians, “To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and for you it is safe.” Yet the same Apostle, writing to the Galatians, when he saw that he had done enough among them of what he judged necessary for them through the ministry of his word, says, “For the rest, let no one cause me labour,” or, as is read in most manuscripts, “let no one trouble me.” But although I confess that it troubles me that the divine words by which the grace of God is preached (which is no grace at all if it is given according to our merits) are not yielded to, many and plain as they are, yet your zeal and brotherly love, my dearest sons Prosper and Hilary, by which you are so unwilling that those who are such should err that after so many books and letters of mine on this matter you still want me to write from here, I love more than I can say; and that I love it as much as I ought, I dare not say. Therefore, see, I write to you again; and though not now with you, yet through you I still do what I thought I had done enough. For having considered your letters, I seem to see that those brothers, for whom you have a godly care that they may not hold the poet's saying, “Each man his own hope,” and fall into what was said not poetically but prophetically, “Cursed is everyone who has his hope in man,” are to be treated in the way the Apostle treated those to whom he says, “And if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal this also to you.” For they are still in darkness on the question of the predestination of the saints; but they have the means by which, if they think otherwise on it, God may reveal this also to them, if they walk in what they have attained. That is why the Apostle, when he had said, “If in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal this also to you,” says, “Nevertheless, to what we have attained, in that let us walk.” Now these brothers of ours, for whom your godly love is anxious, have attained to this: they believe with the church of Christ that the human race is born liable to the sin of the first man, and that no one is set free from this evil except through the righteousness of the second man. They have also attained to confessing that the wills of men are anticipated by the grace of God, and to agreeing that no one can be sufficient of himself either to begin or to complete any good work. Holding fast these things, then, to which they have attained, they are very much distinguished from the error of the Pelagians. Accordingly, if they walk in them and pray to him who gives understanding, if they think otherwise on predestination, he will reveal this also to them; yet let us too bestow on them the affection of love and the ministry of the word, as he grants whom we have asked that in this letter we might say what would be fitting and useful for them. For how do we know whether our God may not will to accomplish this through this service of ours, by which we serve them in the free love of Christ?

First, then, we must show that the faith by which we are Christians is the gift of God, if indeed we can do this more thoroughly than we have already done in so many and so great volumes. But now I see that we must answer those who say that the divine testimonies which we have brought forward on this matter avail to show that we have faith itself from ourselves, but its increase from God; as though faith were not given us by him, but only increased in us by him, by the merit of its having begun from us. So there is no departure from that opinion which Pelagius himself was compelled to condemn in the episcopal judgment in Palestine, as the same Proceedings testify, “that the grace of God is given according to our merits,” if what belongs to the grace of God is not that we begin to believe, but rather what is added to us on that account, so that we may believe more fully and perfectly; and so we give God first the beginning of our faith, so that its completion may be repaid to us, and whatever else we ask faithfully. But against this why do we not rather hear, “Who has first given to him, and it shall be repaid him? For from him and through him and in him are all things”? From whom, then, is the very beginning of our faith, if not from him? For it is not that, this excepted, the rest are from him; but from him and through him and in him are all things. And who would say that one who has already begun to believe merits nothing from him in whom he has believed? Hence it comes to be said that the rest are added by divine repayment to one who already merits, and so that the grace of God is given according to our merits: which Pelagius himself, when it was charged against him, condemned so as not to be condemned. Whoever, then, wants to avoid this condemnable opinion on every side, let him understand truly what the Apostle says: “To you it has been given for Christ's sake not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him.” He shows that both are the gift of God, because he said that both were given. Nor does he say, “that you may believe in him more fully and perfectly,” but “that you may believe in him.” Nor did he say that he himself obtained mercy to be more faithful, but to be faithful; because he knew that he had not first given God the beginning of his faith and had its increase repaid to him by God, but that he had been made faithful by him by whom he was also made an apostle. For the beginnings of his faith too are written, and are well known from being read in church. For, turned away from the faith which he was ravaging and vehemently opposed to it, he was suddenly converted to it by a more powerful grace, he converting him to whom, as one who would do this very thing, it was said through the prophet, “You will turn and give us life”; so that he was not only made willing to believe instead of unwilling, but also, instead of a persecutor, suffered persecution in defence of the faith which he persecuted. For it had been given him by Christ not only to believe in him but also to suffer for him. And therefore, commending this grace, which is not given according to any merits but brings about all good merits, he says, “Not that we are sufficient to think anything as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God.” Let those attend here and weigh these words who think that the beginning of faith is from us and the completion of faith from God. For who does not see that thinking comes before believing? For no one believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed. For however swiftly, however quickly some thoughts fly before the will to believe, and it follows so closely as to accompany them as if most closely joined, it is nevertheless necessary that all things that are believed be believed with thought going before. Though believing itself is nothing other than thinking with assent. For not everyone who thinks believes, since many think in order not to believe; but everyone who believes thinks, and by believing thinks, and by thinking believes. So far, then, as concerns religion and godliness (of which the Apostle was speaking), if we are not sufficient to think anything as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, then we are certainly not sufficient to believe anything as from ourselves, which we cannot do without thinking; but our sufficiency, by which we begin to believe, is from God. Therefore, just as no one is sufficient of himself to begin or complete any good work (which these brothers, as your letters indicate, agree is true), so that in every good work, both in beginning and in completing it, our sufficiency is from God; so no one is sufficient of himself either to begin or to complete faith, but our sufficiency is from God; since faith, if it is not thought, is nothing, and we are not sufficient to think anything as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God. We must beware, brothers beloved of God, lest man lift himself up against God when he says that he does what God has promised. Was not the faith of the Gentiles promised to Abraham, and he, giving glory to God, most fully believed that what he had promised he was able also to do? He, then, makes the faith of the Gentiles who is able to do what he has promised. Further, if God works our faith, acting in a wonderful way in our hearts so that we believe, is it to be feared that he cannot do the whole of it, and that man therefore claims its first parts for himself, so as to deserve to receive the last from him? See whether anything else is done in this way than that the grace of God is given according to our merits in some way, and so grace is no longer grace. For by this bargain it is rendered as due, not given freely; for it is owed to the believer that his faith itself be increased by the Lord, and that faith increased be the reward of faith begun; and it is not noticed, when this is said, that this reward is reckoned to believers not according to grace but according to debt. But why the whole should not be attributed to man, so that he who could establish for himself what he did not have should himself increase what he has established, I do not see at all; unless because the most plain divine testimonies cannot be resisted, by which faith too, from which godliness takes its beginning, is shown to be the gift of God; such as that God has apportioned to each the measure of faith, and, “Peace to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” and the like. So man, not willing to fight against such clear testimonies, and yet willing that his believing be from himself, as it were makes a bargain with God, so as to claim part of faith for himself and leave part to him; and, what is more arrogant, takes the first part himself and gives him the following one; and in what he says belongs to both, he makes himself first and God second.

Not so did that godly and humble teacher think: I speak of the most blessed Cyprian, who said, “We must glory in nothing, since nothing is ours.” To show this he brought forward the Apostle as witness, saying, “And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” By this testimony especially I too was convinced when I erred in a similar way, thinking that the faith by which we believe in God is not the gift of God, but is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God by which we may live soberly and righteously and godly in this world. For I did not think that faith was anticipated by the grace of God, so that through it what we asked for to our profit might be given us, except in this sense, that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not go before; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us, I thought was our own and was ours from ourselves. This error of mine some of my short works written before my episcopate show clearly enough. Among them is the one you mentioned in your letters, where there is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Then, when I was revising all my works, and was carrying out that revision in writing, of which work I had already finished two books before I received your longer letters, when in the first volume I came to revising this book, I spoke thus about it: “Likewise,” I said, “discussing what God chose in one not yet born, to whom he said that the elder would serve, and what in that same elder, likewise not yet born, he rejected (concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recalled, though uttered long afterwards, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’), I brought the reasoning to the point of saying: ‘God, then, did not choose in foreknowledge the works of anyone, which he himself is going to give; but he chose faith in foreknowledge, so that the one whom he foreknew would believe in him, him he chose, to give him the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might also obtain eternal life.’ I had not yet searched carefully, nor yet found, what the election of grace is, of which the same apostle says, ‘A remnant has been saved by the election of grace’; which certainly is not grace if any merits go before it, lest what is given, not according to grace but according to debt, be rendered to merits rather than given. Accordingly, what I said next, ‘For the same apostle says, It is the same God who works all things in all; but it is nowhere said, God believes all things in all,’ and then added, ‘That we believe, then, is ours; but that we do good is his who gives the Holy Spirit to believers,’ I would certainly not have said if I had already known that faith itself too is found among the gifts of God which are given in the same Spirit. Both, then, are ours because of the choice of the will, and both are nevertheless given through the Spirit of faith and love. For not love alone, but, as it is written, ‘Love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’ And what I said a little later, ‘It is ours to believe and to will, but his to give to those who believe and will the ability to do good through the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured out in our hearts,’ is indeed true, but by the same rule: both are his, because he prepares the will, and both are ours, because they are not done unless we will. And therefore what I also said afterwards, ‘Because we cannot even will unless we are called; and when after the call we will, our will and our running are not sufficient unless God gives strength to those who run and leads them where he calls,’ and then added, ‘It is plain, then, that it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy, that we do good,’ is altogether most true. But I discussed too little the calling itself which takes place according to God's purpose; for such is not the calling of all who are called, but only of the elect. So what I said a little later, ‘For as in those whom God chooses it is not works but faith that begins merit, so that by the gift of God they may do good, so in those whom he condemns unbelief and ungodliness begin the merit of punishment, so that through that punishment itself they also do evil,’ I said most truly; but I did not think it needed to be asked, nor did I say, that the merit of faith too is itself the gift of God. And in another place: ‘For on whom he has mercy,’ I said, ‘he makes him do good, and whom he hardens he leaves to do evil; but that mercy is bestowed on the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening on preceding iniquity.’ This indeed is true; but it still had to be asked whether the merit of faith too comes from the mercy of God; that is, whether this mercy takes place in a man only because he is faithful, or had also taken place so that he might be faithful. For we read the Apostle saying, ‘I obtained mercy to be faithful’; he does not say, ‘because I was faithful.’ It is given, then, to the faithful, but it was also given so that he might be faithful. Most rightly, therefore, did I say in another place in the same book, ‘Since, if it is not of works but by the mercy of God that we are both called to believe and enabled when we believe to do good, this mercy is not to be begrudged to the Gentiles,’ although I there treated too little of that calling which takes place by God's purpose.”

You certainly see what I then thought about faith and works, though I was labouring to commend the grace of God; and in that opinion I now see these brothers of ours to be, because they have not taken care, as they have taken care to read my books, to make progress in them with me. For if they had taken care, they would have found this question solved according to the truth of the divine Scriptures in the first of the two books which I wrote to Simplician of blessed memory, bishop of the church of Milan and successor of Saint Ambrose, at the very beginning of my episcopate. Unless perhaps they do not know them; and if so, let them come to know them. Of this first of those two books I spoke first in the second book of the Retractations, and my words run thus: “Of the books,” I said, “which I composed as bishop, the first two are to Simplician, prelate of the church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose, on various questions, two of which, from the Epistle of the apostle Paul to the Romans, I put together in the first book. The first of these concerns what is written, ‘What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from it,’ as far as where he says, ‘Who will deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ In it I expounded those words of the Apostle, ‘The law is spiritual, but I am carnal,’ and the rest, in which the flesh is shown to fight against the spirit, as if a man were being described still under the law, not yet placed under grace. For long afterwards I came to know that those words could also be (and this is more probable) those of the spiritual man. The second question in this book is from the place where he says, ‘And not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived by one act of intercourse with Isaac our father,’ as far as where he says, ‘Unless the Lord of hosts had left us seed, we would have become like Sodom and been made like Gomorrah.’ In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will; but the grace of God won; and I could arrive only at this, that the Apostle is understood to have said with most limpid truth, ‘For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?’ Wishing to show this, the martyr Cyprian too defined the whole of it in his very heading, saying, ‘We must glory in nothing, since nothing is ours.’” See why I said above that by this apostolic testimony especially I myself too had been convinced, when I thought otherwise on this matter; which God revealed to me in solving this question when, as I said, I was writing to bishop Simplician. This testimony of the Apostle, then, where to repress man's puffing up he said, “For what do you have that you did not receive?”, does not allow any of the faithful to say, “I have faith which I did not receive.” All the arrogance of this answer is utterly repressed by these apostolic words. But not even this can be said: “Though I do not have perfect faith, I have its beginning, by which I first believed in Christ.” For here too it is answered: “And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?”

But what they think, “that it cannot be said of this faith, ‘For what do you have that you did not receive?’, because it has remained in the same nature, though vitiated, which was first given sound and perfect,” is seen to avail nothing for what they want, if one considers why the Apostle said this. For he was concerned that no one should glory in man, since dissensions had arisen among the Corinthian Christians, so that each said, “I am of Paul,” another, “I of Apollos,” another, “I of Cephas”; and from this he came to say, “God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God chose the weak things of the world to confound the strong; and the ignoble and despised things of the world God chose, and the things that are not as though they were, to bring to nothing the things that are; so that no flesh may glory before God.” Here certainly the Apostle's intention against human pride is clear enough, that no one should glory in man, and therefore not in himself either. Then, when he had said, “so that no flesh may glory before God,” to show in what man ought to glory, he at once added, “But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; so that, as it is written, ‘He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.’” From there this intention of his goes on, so that afterwards he says reprovingly, “For you are still carnal; for since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal, and walking according to man? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I of Apollos,’ are you not men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, and to each as the Lord gave. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.” Do you see that the Apostle aims at nothing but that man be humbled and God alone exalted? Since in those who are planted and watered he says that not even the planter and waterer is anything, but God who gives the increase; though even the very fact that the one plants and the other waters he attributes not to them but to the Lord, saying, “to each as the Lord gave. I planted, Apollos watered.” Persisting then in the same intention, he comes to say, “So let no one glory in man.” For he had already said, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.” After these and some other things connected with them, this same intention of his is carried through to the point of saying: “These things, brothers, I have transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that you may learn in us not to be puffed up one for another against another beyond what is written. For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” In this most evident intention of the Apostle, in which he speaks against human pride, that no one should glory in man but in the Lord, it is, I think, too absurd to suppose that natural gifts of God are meant, whether the whole and perfect nature itself as it was given in the first creation, or whatever remains there are of the vitiated nature. For are men distinguished from men by these gifts which are common to all men? But here he first said, “For who makes you to differ?” and then added, “And what do you have that you did not receive?” For a man puffed up against another might say, “My faith makes me differ, my righteousness,” or anything else. Meeting such thoughts, the good teacher says, “And what do you have that you did not receive?” From whom, if not from him who makes you differ from another, to whom he did not give what he gave to you? “And if you received it,” he says, “why do you glory as if you had not received it?” Does he, I ask, aim at anything else than that he who glories should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so contrary to this sense as for anyone to glory in his own merits as though he had made them for himself, not the grace of God; but the grace that distinguishes the good from the evil, not that which is common to good and evil. Let it be granted that the grace by which we are rational living beings and are distinguished from cattle is attributed to nature; let that grace too be attributed to nature by which among men themselves the beautiful are distinguished from the ugly, or the talented from the slow, and anything of that kind; but the man whom the Apostle was restraining was not puffing himself up against cattle, nor against another man about some natural gift that could be present even in the worst of men; but he was puffed up attributing to himself, not to God, some good that belonged to the good life, when he deserved to hear, “For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive?” For granted that to be able to have faith belongs to nature, does to have it also belong to nature? “For not all have faith,” though to be able to have faith belongs to all. And the Apostle does not say, “What can you have that you have not received the ability to have?” but he says, “And what do you have that you did not receive?” Accordingly, to be able to have faith, as to be able to have love, belongs to the nature of men; but to have faith, as to have love, belongs to the grace of believers. That nature, then, in which the possibility of having faith was given us, does not distinguish man from man; but faith itself distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. And therefore, where it is said, “For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive?”, whoever dares to say, “I have faith from myself; I did not, then, receive it,” certainly contradicts this most plain truth: not because believing or not believing is not in the choice of the human will, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Therefore “For who makes you to differ? And what do you have that you did not receive?” applies to faith itself as well, which is in the will.

“Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, others contradict. These, then, will to believe, but those do not.” Who does not know this? Who would deny it? But since the will is prepared by the Lord in some and not prepared in others, we must certainly distinguish what comes from his mercy and what from his judgment. “What Israel sought,” says the Apostle, “it has not obtained; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.’ And David says, ‘Let their table become a snare and a recompense and a stumbling block to them; let their eyes be darkened so that they do not see, and bend their back always.’” Here are mercy and judgment: mercy on the election, which has obtained the righteousness of God; but judgment on the rest, who were blinded; and yet the former believed because they willed, the latter did not believe because they did not will. Mercy and judgment, then, took place in the wills themselves. For this election is of grace, certainly not of merits. For he had said above, “So then at this present time also a remnant has been saved by the election of grace. But if by grace, then no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Freely, then, the election obtained what it obtained; nothing of theirs went before, which they might give first and have it repaid to them: he saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is not kept silent there, it was done in recompense. “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But “his ways are unsearchable.” Unsearchable, then, are both the mercy by which he freely sets free and the truth by which he justly judges.

But perhaps they may say, “The Apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” That is so; but Jesus says that faith too is a work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to him, “What shall we do, that we may work the work of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” The Apostle, then, distinguishes faith from works in the way that Judah is distinguished from Israel in the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, though Judah too is Israel. And he says that a man is justified by faith, not by works, because faith is given first, from which the rest may be obtained, which are properly called works, in which one lives righteously. For he himself also says, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God”; that is, even what I said, “through faith,” is not of yourselves, but faith too is the gift of God. “Not of works,” he says, “lest anyone should be lifted up.” For it is commonly said, “He deserved to believe because he was a good man even before he believed.” This can be said of Cornelius, whose alms were accepted and prayers heard before he had believed in Christ; yet he did not give and pray without some faith. For how did he call on him in whom he had not believed? But if he could have been saved without faith in Christ, the apostle Peter would not have been sent as master builder to build him up; although “unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain.” And it is said to us, “Faith is from us; the rest, which belongs to the works of righteousness, is from the Lord”; as though faith did not belong to the building; as though, I say, the foundation did not belong to the building. But if it belongs to it first and foremost, he labours in vain who builds up faith by preaching, unless the Lord in his mercy builds it up within. Whatever good, then, Cornelius did, both before he believed in Christ, and when he was believing, and when he had believed, is all to be given to God, lest anyone should be lifted up.

Accordingly, the one Master and Lord himself, when he had said what I mentioned above, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent,” a little later in the same discourse says, “I said to you that you have seen me and have not believed. All that the Father gives me will come to me.” What does “will come to me” mean but “will believe in me”? But that this may happen, the Father gives. Again a little later: “Do not murmur among yourselves,” he says; “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me.” What does “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me” mean but “There is no one who hears and learns from the Father and does not come to me”? For if everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father nor learned; for if he had heard and learned, he would come. For no one has heard and learned and not come; but everyone, as the Truth says, who has heard from the Father and learned, comes. Very far removed from the senses of the flesh is this school, in which the Father is heard and teaches, so that one comes to the Son. The Son himself is there too, because he is his Word, through whom he teaches thus; and he does not do this with the ear of the flesh but of the heart. At the same time the Spirit of the Father and the Son is there; for he too teaches, and does not teach separately; for we have learned that the works of the Trinity are inseparable. And he is certainly the Holy Spirit, of whom the Apostle says, “Having the same Spirit of faith.” But this is attributed especially to the Father, because from him the Only-begotten is begotten, and from him the Holy Spirit proceeds; on which it would take long to argue more minutely; and I think that our labour on the Trinity which is God, in fifteen books, has already reached you. Very far removed, I say, from the senses of the flesh is this school, in which God is heard and teaches. We see many come to the Son, because we see many believe in Christ; but where and how they have heard and learned this from the Father, we do not see. This grace is exceedingly secret; but who would doubt that it is grace? This grace, then, which is bestowed secretly on human hearts by divine bounty, is rejected by no hard heart. For it is bestowed for this very purpose, that hardness of heart may first be taken away. When, then, the Father is heard within and teaches, so that one comes to the Son, he takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as he promised through the preaching of the prophet. For thus he makes sons of the promise and vessels of mercy which he has prepared for glory. Why, then, does he not teach all to come to Christ, unless because all whom he teaches he teaches in mercy, while those whom he does not teach he does not teach in judgment? For “he has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens”: but he has mercy by bestowing good things, he hardens by repaying what is deserved. Or if these words too, as some have preferred to distinguish, are the words of the one to whom the Apostle says, “You will say to me then,” so that he is taken to have said, “So he has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens,” and what follows, that is, “Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?”, did the Apostle answer, “O man, what you have said is false”? No; but the answer was, “O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me thus?’ Has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump,” and what follows, which you know very well. And yet in a certain manner the Father teaches all to come to his Son. For not in vain is it written in the Prophets, “And they shall all be taught by God.” When he had cited this testimony first, he then added, “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me.” Just as we speak correctly when we say of some teacher of letters who is the only one in a city, “This man teaches everyone letters here,” not because all learn, but because no one who learns letters there learns from anyone but him; so we rightly say, “God teaches all to come to Christ,” not because all come, but because no one comes otherwise. But why he does not teach all the Apostle has disclosed, as far as he judged it should be disclosed: because, “wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, he endured with much patience vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared for glory.” Hence it is that “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God.” All these God teaches to come to Christ; for all these he wills to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For if he had willed to teach those also to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ, without doubt they too would come. For he does not deceive or is deceived who says, “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me.” Far be it, then, that anyone does not come who has heard and learned from the Father. “Why,” they say, “does he not teach all?” If we say that those whom he does not teach are unwilling to learn, we shall be answered, “And where is what is said to him, ‘O God, you will turn and give us life’?” Or if God does not make willing those who are unwilling, why does the church pray, according to the Lord's command, for its persecutors? For so too holy Cyprian wished to be understood what we say, “Your will be done on earth as in heaven,” that is, as in those who have already believed and are like heaven, so also in those who do not believe and are therefore still earth. What, then, do we pray for those who are unwilling to believe, except that God may work in them even to will? Concerning the Jews, certainly, the Apostle says, “Brothers, the good will of my heart and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.” He prays for those who do not believe: for what, if not that they may believe? For in no other way do they obtain salvation. If, then, the faith of those who pray goes before the grace of God, does the faith of those for whom prayer is made that they may believe go before the grace of God? Since what is prayed for them is this, that faith itself may be given to those who do not believe, that is, who do not have faith. When the gospel is preached, then, some believe, some do not believe; but those who believe, while the preacher sounds without, hear and learn within from the Father; while those who do not believe hear without, but within do not hear or learn; that is, to the former it is given to believe, to the latter it is not given. “For no one,” he says, “comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” This is said more plainly afterwards. For some time later, when he was speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and some even of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”, Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring at this, said to them, “Does this offend you?” And a little later: “The words,” he says, “that I have spoken to you are spirit and life; but there are some of you who do not believe.” And at once the Evangelist says, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who were the believers and who was to betray him; and he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it has been given him by my Father.’” To be drawn by the Father to Christ, then, and to hear and learn from the Father so as to come to Christ, is nothing other than to receive from the Father the gift by which one believes in Christ. For he who said, “No one comes to me unless it has been given him by my Father,” was distinguishing not hearers of the gospel from non-hearers, but believers from unbelievers. Faith, then, both begun and completed, is the gift of God; and let no one who does not want to fight against the most plain sacred writings doubt at all that this gift is given to some and not given to others. But why it is not given to all ought not to trouble the believer, who believes that from one man all went into condemnation, without doubt most just, so that there would be no just reproach against God even if none were set free from it. From this it is clear that it is a great grace that very many are set free, and that they recognize in those who are not set free what was owed to themselves, so that he who glories may glory not in his own merits, which he sees are equal to those of the condemned, but in the Lord. But why he sets free this one rather than that one, “his judgments are inscrutable and his ways unsearchable.” For it is better for us here too to hear or say, “O man, who are you to answer back to God?”, than to dare to say, as though we knew, what he willed to be hidden, who nevertheless could not will anything unjust.

As for what you recall that I said in a short work of mine against Porphyry, under the title On the Time of the Christian Religion, I said it in such a way as to pass over this more careful and laborious discussion of grace, though not without indicating that I had not wished to explain in that place what could be explained elsewhere or by others. For among other things, answering the question proposed, why Christ came after so long a time, I spoke thus: “Accordingly,” I said, “since they do not object against Christ that not all follow his teaching (for they themselves feel that this can by no means rightly be objected either against the wisdom of the philosophers or even against the divinity of their own gods), what will they answer if, setting aside that depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God, where perhaps another divine counsel lies hidden far more secretly, and without prejudice to other causes perhaps that can be traced out by the wise, we say to them only this, for brevity's sake, in the discussion of this question: that Christ willed to appear to men and to have his teaching preached among them when he knew, and where he knew, there were those who would believe in him? For in those times and places in which his gospel was not preached, he foreknew that all would be such, at his preaching, as many, though not all, were in his bodily presence, who would not believe in him even when the dead were raised by him; such as we see many even now, though the proclamations of the Prophets concerning him are fulfilled with such evidence, still unwilling to believe, and preferring to resist with human cunning rather than yield to divine authority so clear and evident, so sublime and so sublimely spread abroad, as long as the understanding of man is small and weak for drawing near to divine truth. What wonder, then, if Christ knew that in former ages the world was so full of unbelievers that he rightly did not will to appear or be preached to those whom he foreknew would believe neither his words nor his miracles? For it is not incredible that all were then such as we marvel that so many have been and are from his coming to this time. And yet from the beginning of the human race, sometimes more hiddenly, sometimes more evidently, as seemed by divine counsel fitting to the times, neither did prophecy cease nor were there lacking those who believed in him, both from Adam to Moses, and in the people of Israel itself, which by a special mystery was a prophetic nation, and in other nations before he came in the flesh. For since some are mentioned in the holy Hebrew books, already from the time of Abraham, neither of his fleshly stock, nor of the people of Israel, nor of those who joined the people of Israel from outside, who nevertheless shared in this sacrament, why should we not believe that there were others too in other nations here and there, though we do not read of them mentioned in the same authorities? Thus the salvation of this religion, through which alone true salvation is truly promised, was never lacking to anyone who was worthy, and he to whom it was lacking was not worthy. And from the beginning of human propagation to the end it is preached, to some for reward, to some for judgment. And therefore those to whom it has not been announced at all were foreknown as not going to believe; and those to whom it has been announced though they would not believe are shown as an example to the former; but those to whom it is announced who will believe are being prepared for the kingdom of heaven and the fellowship of the holy angels.” Do you see that, without prejudice to the hidden counsel of God and to other causes, I wished to say this about the foreknowledge of Christ, which seemed sufficient to refute the unbelief of the pagans who had raised this question? For what is truer than that Christ foreknew who would believe in him, and when, and in what places? But whether, when Christ was preached to them, they would have faith from themselves or receive it by God's gift, that is, whether God only foreknew them or also predestined them, I did not then think it necessary to ask and discuss. Accordingly, what I said, “that Christ willed to appear to men and to have his teaching preached among them when he knew and where he knew there were those who would believe in him,” can also be said thus: that Christ willed to appear to men and to have his teaching preached among them when he knew and where he knew there were those who had been chosen in him before the foundation of the world. But since, if it were said so, it would make the reader attentive to inquire into those things which now, at the prompting of the Pelagian error, must be discussed more fully and laboriously, it seemed to me that what was then sufficient should be said briefly, setting aside, as I said, the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and without prejudice to other causes, of which I thought it more fitting to argue not then, but elsewhere.

Likewise as to what I said, “that the salvation of this religion was never lacking to anyone who was worthy, and that he to whom it was lacking was not worthy”: if it is examined and asked from where anyone is worthy, there is no lack of those who say, by the human will; but we say, by grace or divine predestination. Now between grace and predestination there is only this difference: that predestination is the preparation of grace, while grace is the giving itself. So what the Apostle says, “Not of works, lest anyone should be lifted up; for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works,” is grace; but what follows, “which God prepared that we should walk in them,” is predestination, which cannot be without foreknowledge; but foreknowledge can be without predestination. For by predestination God foreknew the things that he himself was going to do; hence it was said, “He has made the things that are to be.” But he is able to foreknow even things that he does not do, such as any sins whatever; because, even if there are some which are sins in such a way that they are also punishments of sins, of which it was said, “God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do what is not fitting,” there it is not God's sin, but his judgment. Therefore the predestination of God, which is in good, is, as I said, the preparation of grace; and grace is the effect of that predestination. When, then, God promised Abraham the faith of the nations in his seed, saying, “I have made you the father of many nations,” whence the Apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith, so that the promise may be firm according to grace to all the seed,” he promised not from the power of our will but from his own predestination. For he promised what he himself was going to do, not what men would. For even if men do the good things that belong to the worship of God, he himself makes them do what he has commanded; they do not make him do what he has promised; otherwise it is not in God's power but in men's that God's promises be fulfilled, and what was promised by the Lord is rendered to Abraham by them. But Abraham did not believe so; he believed, giving glory to God, that what he had promised he was able also to do. He does not say “to foretell,” he does not say “to foreknow,” for he can foretell and foreknow the deeds of others too; but he says, “he is able also to do,” and therefore deeds not of others but his own. Or perhaps God promised Abraham in his seed the good works of the nations, so as to promise what he himself does, but did not promise the faith of the nations, which men make for themselves; but, so as to promise what he himself does, he foreknew that men would make that faith? The Apostle certainly does not speak so; for God promised Abraham sons who would follow the footsteps of his faith; this he says most plainly. But if he promised the works of the nations, not their faith, then certainly, since there are no good works except from faith (for “The righteous lives by faith,” and “Whatever is not of faith is sin,” and “Without faith it is impossible to please”), it is nevertheless in men's power that God fulfil what he has promised. For unless man does what belongs to man without God's giving, he himself will not do what he gives; that is, unless man has faith from himself, God does not fulfil what he promised, that works of righteousness be given from God. And therefore it is not in God's power but in man's that God be able to fulfil his promises. But if truth and godliness forbid us to believe this, let us believe with Abraham that what he has promised he is able also to do. Now he promised sons to Abraham; which they cannot be if they do not have faith; therefore he himself gives faith too.

Truly, since the Apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith, so that the promise may be firm according to grace,” I wonder that men prefer to entrust themselves to their own weakness rather than to the firmness of God's promise. “But the will of God concerning me,” he says, “is uncertain to me.” What then? Is your own will concerning yourself certain to you, and do you not fear, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall”? Since, then, both are uncertain, why does man not entrust his faith, hope, and love to the stronger rather than the weaker? “But when it is said,” they say, “‘If you believe, you will be saved,’ one of these is required, the other offered. What is required is in man's power; what is offered is in God's.” Why are not both in God's power, both what he commands and what he offers? For he is asked to give what he commands: believers ask that their faith be increased; they ask for unbelievers that faith be given them; so in its increases and in its beginnings faith is the gift of God. But it is said, “If you believe, you will be saved,” in the same way as it is said, “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.” For here too, of these two, one is required, the other offered. “If by the Spirit,” he says, “you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live”: that we put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit is required; that we live is offered. Do we wish, then, to say that putting to death the deeds of the flesh is not the gift of God, and not to confess that it is the gift of God because we hear it required of us, with the reward of life offered if we do it? Far be it that this should please those who share in and defend grace! This condemnable error is the Pelagians'; whose mouths the Apostle at once stopped by adding, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God,” so that we should not believe that we put to death the deeds of the flesh by our own spirit and not by God's. Of this Spirit of God he was speaking also where he says, “All these things are worked by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each individually as he wills”; among all of which, as you know, he named faith too. Just as, then, though it is the gift of God to put to death the deeds of the flesh, it is nevertheless required of us with the reward of life set before us, so faith too is the gift of God, although it too, when it is said, “If you believe, you will be saved,” is required of us with the reward of salvation set before us. For these things are both commanded to us and shown to be God's gifts so that it may be understood that we do them and that God makes us do them, as he says most plainly through the prophet Ezekiel. For what is plainer than where he says, “I will make you do”? Look at that passage of Scripture, and you will see that God promises that he will make them do what he commands to be done. Nor is he silent there about their merits, but evil ones; for which he shows that he renders good for evil, by the very fact that he makes them have good works thereafter, when he makes them do the divine commandments.

But all this reasoning, by which we defend that the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord is truly grace, that is, is not given according to our merits, although it is asserted most evidently by the testimonies of the divine oracles, nevertheless, with those who think themselves held back from all zeal for godliness unless they assign to themselves something that they give first so that it may be repaid to them, labours somewhat in the case of those of a greater age who already use the choice of the will; but when one comes to little children, and to the Mediator himself between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, every assertion of human merits preceding the grace of God fails: because neither are they distinguished from the rest by any preceding good merits so as to belong to the deliverer of men, nor did he become the deliverer of men by any preceding human merits, though he too is a man. For who would listen to the claim that little children, baptized in that very infant age, depart from this life for their future merits, and that others die unbaptized at the same age because their future merits too are foreknown, but evil ones; with God rewarding or condemning not their good or evil life, but no life at all? The Apostle indeed set a limit which the unwary suspicion of man, to put it mildly, ought not to overstep. For he says, “We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive according to what he has done through the body, whether good or evil.” “Has done,” he says; he did not add, “or would have done.” But how this came into the minds of such men I do not know, that future merits of little children, which are not going to be, should be punished or honoured. And why is it said that a man is to be judged according to what he has done through the body, when many things are done in the mind alone, not through the body nor through any member of the body, and often things so great that most just punishment is due to such thoughts; such as, to say nothing of others, that the fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”? What, then, does “according to what he has done through the body” mean but “according to what he did in the time when he was in the body,” so that by “through the body” we understand “through the time of the body”? But after the body no one will be in the body except at the last resurrection, not to acquire any merits, but to receive rewards for good merits and pay punishments for evil ones. In this intervening time between laying down and taking up the body, souls are either tormented or at rest according to what they did through the time of the body. To this time of the body belongs also original sin, which the Pelagians deny but the church of Christ confesses; and when infants die, this being either loosed by the grace of God or not loosed by the judgment of God, they pass either by the merit of regeneration from evil to good, or by the merit of their origin from evil to evil. This the Catholic faith knows; in this even some heretics agree without any contradiction. But that anyone should be judged not according to the merits he had as long as he was in the body, but according to the merits he would have had if he had lived longer in the body: how men could have come to think this, men whose talents, as your letters indicate, are not contemptible, I cannot find, wondering and amazed; nor would I dare to believe it, except that I would not dare not to believe you. But I hope that God will be at hand, so that, being admonished, they may soon see that, if what are said to have been future sins can rightly be punished by God's judgment in the unbaptized, they can also be forgiven by God's grace in the baptized. For whoever says that future sins can only be punished by God's judging and cannot be forgiven by God's mercy ought to consider how great a wrong he does to God and his grace; as if future sin could be foreknown but could not be forgiven. But if this is absurd, then all the more ought help have been given to those who would have been sinners if they had lived long, when they die at a young age, by the washing in which sins are washed away.

But if perhaps they say that sins are forgiven to those who repent, and that these are therefore not baptized when they die at a young age, because they were foreknown as not going to repent if they lived, while those who are baptized and leave the body as little children God foreknew would have repented if they had lived, let them notice and see that, if this is so, it is no longer original sins that are punished in little children dying without baptism, but each one's own future sins if he had lived; and likewise in the baptized it is not original sins that are washed away, but their own future sins if they had lived, since they could not sin except at a greater age; but some were foreseen as going to repent and others as not going to repent, and therefore some departed this life baptized, others without baptism. If the Pelagians dared to say this, they would no longer labour, in denying original sin, to seek for little children outside the kingdom of God some place of I know not what happiness of their own; especially since they are refuted by the fact that they cannot have eternal life because they have not eaten the flesh nor drunk the blood of Christ, and that in those who have no sin at all, baptism, which is given for the remission of sins, is false. For they would say that there is no original sin at all, but that those who are released from the body as infants are baptized or not baptized according to their own future merits if they had lived; and according to their own future merits they either receive or do not receive the body and blood of Christ, without which they can have no life at all; and that they are baptized for a true remission of sins, though they draw none from Adam, since the sins are forgiven them of which God foreknew they would repent. So they would most easily plead and win their case, in which they deny that there is original sin and contend that the grace of God is given only according to our merits. But since the future merits of men, which are not going to be, are without doubt no merits at all, and this is very easy to see, therefore not even the Pelagians could say this; and much more ought these not to have said it. For I cannot say how much it troubles me that what the Pelagians saw to be most false and most absurd these have not seen, who with us condemn the error of those heretics by Catholic authority.

Cyprian wrote a book On Mortality, well known and praised by many, indeed by nearly all who love church literature; in which he says that death is not only not useless to believers, but is even found to be useful, because it withdraws a man from the dangers of sinning and sets him in the security of not sinning. But what does this profit, if even future sins, which have not been committed, are punished? Yet he argues most fully and very well that the dangers of sinning are not lacking in this life and do not remain after it. There he also sets down that testimony from the book of Wisdom: “He was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding.” When I too set this down, you said these brothers rejected it as not brought forward from a canonical book; as if, even apart from the witness of this book, the very thing I wanted to be taught from it were not clear. For what Christian would dare to deny that the righteous man, if he is overtaken by death, will be in refreshment? Whoever says this, what man of sound faith will think he should be resisted? Likewise, if he says that the righteous man, if he departs from his righteousness in which he lived long and dies in that ungodliness in which he has lived, I do not say one year, but one day, will go hence into the punishments due to the wicked, and his past righteousness will profit him nothing, what believer will contradict this plain truth? Further, if we are asked whether, if he had died then when he was righteous, he would have found punishment or rest, shall we hesitate to answer rest? This is the whole reason why it was said, by whomever it was said, “He was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding.” For it was said with reference to the dangers of this life, not with reference to the foreknowledge of God, who foreknew what was going to be, not what was not going to be; that is, that he was going to grant him an early death so that he might be withdrawn from the uncertainty of temptations; not that he would sin, who was not going to remain in temptation. For of this life we read in the book of Job, “Is not human life on earth a trial?” But why it is granted to some to be taken from the dangers of this life while they are righteous, while other righteous men are held in those same dangers by a longer life until they fall from righteousness, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” And yet from this it is given to understand that even those righteous who keep good and godly ways to the ripeness of old age and the last day of this life must glory not in their own merits but in the Lord; since he who by shortness of life snatched away the righteous man lest wickedness should change his understanding himself guards the righteous man in any length of life whatever lest wickedness should change his understanding. But why he kept here the righteous man who was going to fall, when he could have taken him away before he fell, his judgments are altogether most just, but inscrutable. Since this is so, the statement of the book of Wisdom ought not to have been rejected, which has deserved to be read in the church of Christ from the rank of readers of the church of Christ for so long a span of years, and to be heard by all Christians, from bishops down to the lowest lay believers, penitents, and catechumens, with the veneration due to divine authority. Certainly, if I were to bring forward from the expositors of the divine Scriptures who were before us a defence of this teaching, which we are now urged to defend more carefully and fully than usual against the new error of the Pelagians, namely that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, and is given freely to whom it is given, because it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy, while by just judgment it is not given to whom it is not given, because there is no iniquity with God: if, then, I were to produce a defence of this teaching from the Catholic expositors of the divine oracles who preceded us, these brothers for whom we are now acting would surely acquiesce; for this you have indicated in your letters. What need is there, then, for us to search the works of those who, before this heresy arose, had no need to busy themselves with this question, difficult to solve? Which they would without doubt have done if they had been compelled to answer such men. Hence it came about that they touched briefly and in passing, in some places of their writings, on what they thought about the grace of God; but they dwelt on the things they were arguing against the enemies of the church, and on exhortations to every virtue by which the living and true God is served for the attaining of eternal life and true happiness. But by the frequency of their prayers what the grace of God avails appeared simply; for things that he commands to be done would not be asked of God unless it were given by him that they be done. But those who want to be instructed by the opinions of expositors ought to put this book of Wisdom, where it is read, “He was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding,” before all expositors; since even eminent expositors nearest in time to the apostles put it before themselves, who, bringing it forward as a witness, believed that they were bringing forward nothing but a divine testimony. And it is certainly established that the most blessed Cyprian argued, in order to commend the benefit of a speedier death, that those who end this life, in which one can sin, are rescued from the dangers of sins. In the same book he says among other things: “Why do you not embrace being called to Christ, you who will be with Christ and are secure of the Lord's promise, and rejoice that you are free of the devil?” And in another place: “Boys,” he says, “escape the danger of a slippery age.” And again in another: “Why do we not hasten and run, so that we may see our homeland and greet our parents? A great number of those dear to us await us there, parents, brothers, children; a dense and abundant throng longs for us, already secure of its own safety, still anxious for our salvation.” By these and similar statements that teacher, in the most clear light of the Catholic faith, testifies plainly and clearly enough that the dangers of sinning and temptations are to be feared until the laying down of this body, and that thereafter no one will suffer any such things. And even if he did not testify to this, what Christian of any kind would doubt about this matter? How, then, for a man who has fallen and ends this life wretchedly in that same fall and goes into the punishments due to such men, how, I say, would it not be of the greatest and highest profit to him if he had been snatched by death from this place of temptations before he fell? And therefore, if excessively ill-considered contention is absent, this whole question is settled concerning him who was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding. Nor should the book of Wisdom, which has deserved to be read in the church of Christ for so great a number of years, and in which this too is read, suffer wrong because it resists those who are deceived about the merits of men so as to come against the most manifest grace of God; which appears most of all in little children, of whom, since some end this life baptized and others not baptized, they indicate clearly enough mercy and judgment: mercy freely given, judgment due. For if men were judged according to the merits of their life which they did not have, being prevented by death, but would have had if they had lived, it would profit nothing to him who was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding; it would profit nothing to those who die fallen if they had died before; which no Christian will dare to say. Therefore our brothers, who with us attack the ruin of the Pelagian error on behalf of the Catholic faith, ought not to favour this Pelagian opinion, by which they think the grace of God is given according to our merits, so far as to try to destroy what the Pelagians cannot dare, a statement plainly true and anciently Christian, “He was snatched away lest wickedness should change his understanding,” and to assert what we would have thought no one, I do not say would believe, but would dream: namely, that each of the dead is judged according to what he would have done if he had lived a longer time. So clear is it that what we say is invincible, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, that talented men contradicting this truth are compelled to say things that should be driven away from the ears and thoughts of all.

There is also the most illustrious light of predestination and grace, the Saviour himself, the Mediator himself between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. By what preceding merits of his own, whether of works or of faith, did the human nature that is in him obtain to be this? Let it be answered, I pray: that man, so as to be the only-begotten Son of God, taken up by the Word co-eternal with the Father into unity of person, from where did he merit this? What good of his of any kind went before? What did he do beforehand, what did he believe, what did he ask, so as to come to this ineffable excellence? Was it not by the Word's making and taking him up that that man, from the time he began to be, began to be the only Son of God? Did not that woman full of grace conceive the only Son of God? Was not the only Son of God born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not by the desire of the flesh, but by a singular gift of God? Was it to be feared that, as he grew in age, that man would sin by free choice? Or was the will in him therefore not free, and not all the more free, the more it could not serve sin? Surely all these things, singularly to be wondered at, and any others that can most truly be said to be his own, human nature, that is, our nature, received singularly in him, with no preceding merits of its own. Let a man here answer back to God, if he dares, and say, “Why not I too?” And if he hears, “O man, who are you to answer back to God?”, let him not restrain himself even so, but increase his impudence and say, “What do I hear, ‘Who are you, O man?’ Since I am what I hear, that is, a man, which he too is of whom I speak, why should I not be what he is?” But it is by grace that he is such and so great. Why is grace different where nature is common? Certainly there is no respect of persons with God. Who, I do not say Christian, but madman, would say these things? Let the very fountain of grace, then, appear to us in our Head, from whom it spreads through all his members according to the measure of each. By that grace every man becomes a Christian from the beginning of his faith, by which grace that man from his beginning became Christ; this man too is reborn of the same Spirit of whom that one was born; by the same Spirit the remission of sins takes place in us by which Spirit it came about that he had no sin. That he would do these things God certainly foreknew. This, then, is the predestination of the saints, which shone most of all in the Holy of holies: who of those who rightly understand the words of truth can deny it? For we have learned that the Lord of glory himself, inasmuch as man was made the Son of God, was predestined. The teacher of the Gentiles cries out at the head of his Epistles, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he had promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son, who was made for him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestined Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead.” Jesus, then, was predestined, so that he who was to be the son of David according to the flesh should nevertheless be in power the Son of God according to the Spirit of sanctification; because he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. This is that singular taking up of man by God the Word, ineffably done, so that he might truly and properly be called at once Son of God and son of man: son of man because of the man taken up, and Son of God because of the only-begotten God who takes him up; lest not a trinity but a quaternity be believed. This so great, so lofty, and so supreme raising up of human nature was predestined, so that it had nowhere higher to be raised; just as for us the divinity itself had nowhere lower to put itself than by taking up the nature of man with the weakness of the flesh even to the death of the cross. Just as, then, that one man was predestined to be our Head, so we many have been predestined to be his members. Let human merits, which perished through Adam, be silent here, and let the grace of God reign, which reigns through Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God, the one Lord. Whoever finds in our Head preceding merits of that singular generation, let him look in us his members for preceding merits of the multiplied regeneration. For that generation was not repaid to Christ but bestowed on him, so that, free from every bond of sin, he might be born of the Spirit and the Virgin. So too to us it was not repaid for any merit, but freely bestowed, that we should be reborn of water and the Spirit; and if faith led us to the washing of regeneration, we ought not therefore to think that we gave something first, so that saving regeneration might be repaid to us; for he made us believe in Christ who made for us the Christ in whom we believe; he makes in men the beginning of faith and its completion in Jesus who made the man Jesus the author and finisher of faith; for so he is called, as you know, in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

For God calls his many predestined sons so as to make them members of his only predestined Son, not by that calling by which those too were called who would not come to the wedding; for by that calling the Jews too were called, to whom Christ crucified is a stumbling block, and the Gentiles, to whom the crucified is foolishness; but he calls the predestined by that calling which the Apostle distinguished when he said that he preached to those who are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For he says, “but to those who are called,” so as to show the others as not called; knowing that there is a certain sure calling of those who are called according to his purpose, whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Signifying this calling, he says: “Not of works, but of him who calls, it was said to her, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” Did he say, “Not of works, but of him who believes”? He took even this away from man altogether, so as to give the whole to God. He said, then, “but of him who calls”: not by any calling whatever, but by the calling by which one becomes a believer. He was looking at this calling too when he said, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” For notice for a little what was being dealt with there. For when he had said, “For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, lest you be wise in yourselves: that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, and so all Israel would be saved; as it is written, ‘The deliverer will come from Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins,’” he at once added what must be carefully understood: “As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake; but as regards the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.” What does “As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake” mean, but that their enmity, by which they killed Christ, without doubt profited the gospel, as we see? And he shows that this came from the disposition of God, who knows how to use even evil men well: not so that the vessels of wrath may profit him, but so that, as he uses them well, they may profit the vessels of mercy. For what could be said more plainly than what was said, “As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake”? It is in the power of the wicked, then, to sin; but that by sinning they do this or that by their wickedness is not in their power, but God's, who divides the darkness and orders it; so that even what they do against the will of God, only the will of God is fulfilled. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that when the apostles, released by the Jews, had come to their own and reported all that the priests and elders had said to them, they all with one accord raised their voice to the Lord and said: “Lord, it is you who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your holy servant, said, ‘Why did the nations rage, and the peoples plot vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.’ For truly there gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, Herod and Pilate and the people of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your counsel predestined to be done.” See what is meant by “As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake.” For the hand and counsel of God predestined to be done by the hostile Jews as much as was necessary to the gospel for our sake. But what is it that follows, “But as regards the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers”? Are those enemies who perished in their enmity, and those of that same nation who still perish opposing Christ, themselves the chosen and beloved? Far from it! Who, even the most foolish, would say this? But both, though contrary to each other, that is, enemies and beloved, apply, though not to the same men, yet to the same nation of the Jews and to the same fleshly seed of Israel, some of them belonging to the lameness, others to the blessing of Israel itself. For he explained this sense more plainly above, where he says, “What Israel sought, it has not obtained; but the election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Yet in both is the same Israel. Where, then, we hear, “Israel has not obtained,” or, “the rest were blinded,” there the enemies for our sake are to be understood; but where we hear, “But the election has obtained it,” there are to be understood the beloved for the sake of the fathers: to which fathers certainly these things were promised. For the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Hence also the wild olive of the Gentiles is grafted into this olive tree. Now what election he means, which is according to grace, not according to debt, ought certainly to come to mind; since a remnant has come about by the election of grace. This election obtained it, while the rest were blinded. According to this election the Israelites are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For they were not called with that calling of which it is said, “Many are called,” but with that by which the elect are called. Hence here too, after he had said, “But as regards the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers,” he at once added what we are dealing with: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” that is, they are stably fixed without change. Those who belong to this calling are all taught by God; nor can any of them say, “I believed so as to be called thus”; for the mercy of God went before him, because he was so called that he might believe. For all those taught by God come to the Son, since they have heard and learned from the Father through the Son, who says most plainly, “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me.” Of these none perishes, because of all that the Father has given him he will lose nothing. Whoever, then, is of that number does not perish at all; nor was he of it who perishes. That is why it is said, “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.”

Let us understand, then, the calling by which men become elect: not those who are chosen because they have believed, but those who are chosen so that they may believe. For the Lord himself discloses this calling clearly enough when he says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” For if they were chosen because they had believed, they themselves had certainly first chosen him by believing in him, so as to deserve to be chosen. But he who says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” takes this away altogether. And they indeed without doubt chose him when they believed in him. So he says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” for no other reason than that they did not choose him so that he might choose them, but he chose them so that they might choose him; because his mercy went before them, according to grace, not according to debt. He chose them, then, out of the world while he was wearing flesh, but they were already chosen in himself before the foundation of the world. This is the immovable truth of predestination and grace. For what is it that the Apostle says, “As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”? If this was said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because he himself was going to make them believers, the Son speaks against such a foreknowledge, saying, “You did not choose me, but I chose you”; since God would rather have foreknown this, that they would choose him, so as to deserve to be chosen by him. They were chosen, then, before the foundation of the world by that predestination in which God foreknew his own future deeds; but they were chosen out of the world by that calling by which God fulfilled what he predestined. “For those whom he predestined, he also called,” that is, with that calling according to his purpose; not others, then, but those whom he predestined he also called; nor others, but those whom he so called he also justified; nor others, but those whom he predestined, called, justified, he also glorified; with that end, certainly, which has no end. God chose believers, then, but so that they might be such, not because they already were. The apostle James says: “Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God has promised to those who love him?” By choosing them, then, he makes them rich in faith, as he makes them heirs of the kingdom. For he is rightly said to choose this in them which he chooses them in order to make in them. Who, I ask, would hear the Lord saying, “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” and dare to say that men believe so that they may be chosen, when rather they are chosen so that they may believe; lest, against the statement of the Truth, they be found to have chosen Christ first, to whom Christ says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you”?

Who would hear the Apostle saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, in which he has graced us in his beloved Son; in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, which has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence, so that he might make known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good will, which he purposed in him, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven and which are on earth, in him; in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, that we should be to the praise of his glory”: who, I say, would hear these things carefully and intelligently, and dare to doubt this truth which we defend, so clear as it is? God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world his members; and how would he choose those who did not yet exist, except by predestining? He chose us, then, by predestining. Would he choose the ungodly and unclean? For if the question is put whether he chooses these or rather the holy and blameless, who would ask which of these to answer, and not at once give judgment for the holy and blameless? “So he foreknew,” says the Pelagian, “who would be holy and blameless through the choice of free will; and therefore before the foundation of the world, in that very foreknowledge of his by which he foreknew that they would be such, he chose them. He chose them, then,” he says, “before they existed, predestining as sons those whom he foreknew would be holy and blameless: certainly he did not make them so, nor foresaw that he would, but foresaw that they would be so.” Let us look, then, at the words of the Apostle, and see whether he chose us before the foundation of the world because we were going to be holy and blameless, or so that we might be. “Blessed,” he says, “be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish.” Not, then, because we were going to be, but so that we might be. Surely it is certain, surely it is plain: we were going to be such for this reason, that he himself chose us, predestining that we should be such through his grace. So, then, he has blessed us with a spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him, in love having predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself. Then notice what he adds: “according to the good pleasure,” he says, “of his will”; lest in so great a benefit of grace we should glory in the good pleasure of our own will. “In which he has graced us,” he says, “in his beloved Son”: in which will of his, certainly, he has graced us. “Graced” is said from “grace” as “justified” is said from “justice.” “In whom we have,” he says, “redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace, which has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence, so that he might make known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good will.” In this mystery of his will he placed the riches of his grace, according to his good will, not according to ours; which could not be good unless he himself, according to his good will, came to its aid so that it might become good. And when he had said, “according to his good will,” he added, “which he purposed in him,” that is, in his beloved Son, “in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven and which are on earth, in him; in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, that we should be to the praise of his glory.” It would be too long to discuss each point. But you see without doubt, you see with how great clearness of the apostolic words this grace is defended, against which human merits are extolled, as though man gives something first so that it may be repaid him. God chose us, then, in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestining us to adoption as sons; not because we were going to be holy and blameless by ourselves, but he chose and predestined us so that we might be. And he did this according to the good pleasure of his will, so that no one may glory in his own will, but in God's will toward him; he did this according to the riches of his grace, according to his good will, which he purposed in his beloved Son, in whom we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose, not ours, but his who works all things, to the point that he himself works in us even to will. And he works according to the counsel of his will, that we should be to the praise of his glory. Hence it is that we cry out that no one should glory in man, and therefore not in himself either, but that he who glories should glory in the Lord, that we may be to the praise of his glory. For he himself works according to his purpose that we may be to the praise of his glory, holy, certainly, and blameless, for which he called us, predestining us before the foundation of the world. From this purpose of his comes that calling proper to the elect, for whom all things work together for good, because they are called according to his purpose, and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

But these brothers of ours, about whom and for whom we are now acting, perhaps say that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolic testimony, where he says that we were chosen in Christ and predestined before the foundation of the world so that we might be holy and blameless before him in love. For they think that, “having received the commandments, we now become holy and blameless before him in love by ourselves, by the choice of free will; and since God foreknew this as future,” they say, “he therefore chose and predestined us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Whereas the Apostle says that he did so not because he foreknew that we would be such, but so that we might be such through that very election of his grace, by which he has graced us in his beloved Son. When, then, he predestined us, he foreknew his own work, by which he makes us holy and blameless. Hence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” they say, “that God foreknew nothing of ours except the faith by which we begin to believe, and therefore he chose and predestined us before the foundation of the world, so that we might also be holy and blameless by his grace and work.” But let them too hear in this testimony where he says, “We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things.” He, then, who works all things works that we begin to believe. For neither that calling of which it is said, “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” and of which it is said, “Not of works, but of him who calls” (when he could have said, “but of him who believes”), nor the election which the Lord signified when he said, “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” is preceded by faith itself. For he chose us not because we believed, but so that we might believe; lest we say that we chose him first, and so, far be it, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” be false. Nor are we called because we believed, but so that we may believe; and by that calling, which is without repentance, this is altogether brought about and carried through, that we believe. Nor need all the many things we have said on this matter be gone over again. Then too, in what follows this testimony, the Apostle gives thanks to God for those who have believed; not, certainly, because the gospel was announced to them, but because they believed. For he says: “In whom you too, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom believing you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, for the redemption of possession, to the praise of his glory. For this reason I too, having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and toward all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you.” Their faith was new and recent, the gospel having been preached to them; and having heard of this faith, the Apostle gives thanks to God for them. If he gave thanks to a man for what he thought or knew that man had not provided, it would more truly be called flattery or mockery than thanksgiving. “Do not be deceived; God is not mocked”; for even faith in its beginning is his gift, lest the Apostle's thanksgiving be rightly judged false or deceitful. What of this? Does not the beginning of the faith of the Thessalonians appear, for which the same apostle nevertheless gives thanks to God, saying, “For this reason we too give thanks to God without ceasing, because when you received from us the word of hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God, which works in you who have believed”? Why does he give thanks to God for this? Surely it is vain and empty if he to whom he gives thanks did not himself do it. But since this is not vain and empty, God, to whom he gives thanks for this work, himself certainly did it, so that when they received from the Apostle the word of hearing of God, they received it not as the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God. God therefore works in the hearts of men, by that calling according to his purpose of which we have spoken much, so that they do not hear the gospel in vain, but, having heard it, are converted and believe, receiving it not as the word of men but as it truly is, the word of God.

That the very beginning of men's faith is the gift of God the Apostle also reminds us, when he signifies it in the Epistle to the Colossians, saying: “Continue in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving, praying also for us at the same time, that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds, that I may make it manifest as I ought to speak.” How is a door of the word opened, unless when the understanding of the hearer is opened so that he believes, and, the beginning of faith having been made, admits what is preached and argued for building up sound doctrine; lest, his heart being shut by unbelief, he disapprove and reject what is said? Hence he says to the Corinthians too: “But I will remain at Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great and evident door has been opened to me, and there are many adversaries.” What else can be understood here, but that when the gospel was first preached there by him many believed, and many adversaries of that same faith appeared, according to that saying of the Lord, “No one comes to me unless it has been given him by my Father,” and, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given”? A door, then, was opened in those to whom it was given, but many were adversaries from among those to whom it was not given. Likewise the same apostle to the same people in the second Epistle: “When I came,” he says, “to Troas for the gospel of Christ, and a door was opened to me in the Lord, I had no rest for my spirit, because I did not find Titus my brother; but taking leave of them I went on to Macedonia.” To whom did he say farewell, but to those who had believed, in whose hearts, that is, the door had been opened to him as he preached the gospel? But notice what he adds: “But thanks be to God,” he says, “who always makes us triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the fragrance of his knowledge in every place; for we are the good fragrance of Christ to God, among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to some a fragrance of death unto death, to others a fragrance of life unto life.” See for what that most valiant soldier and most invincible defender of grace gives thanks: see for what he gives thanks, that the apostles are the good fragrance of Christ to God, both in those who are being saved by his grace and in those who are perishing by his judgment. But so that those who understand little may be less angry at this, he himself warns them when he adds and says, “And who is sufficient for these things?” But let us return to the opening of the door, by which the Apostle signified the beginning of faith of those who hear. For what is “praying also for us at the same time, that God may open to us a door of the word,” but a most plain demonstration that even the very beginning of faith is the gift of God? For it would not be sought from him by praying unless it were believed to be granted by him. This gift of heavenly grace had descended on that seller of purple whose understanding, as Scripture says in the Acts of the Apostles, God had opened, and she paid attention to what was being said by Paul. For she was being called so that she might believe. For God does what he wills in the hearts of men, either by helping or by judging, so that even through them may be fulfilled what his hand and counsel predestined to be done. In vain, then, did they say that what we proved from the testimony of the Scripture of Kingdoms and Chronicles does not pertain to the cause we are discussing: that when God wills something to be done which ought to be done only by men who will it, their hearts are inclined to will it, he inclining them who in a wonderful and ineffable way works in us even to will. What is that but to say nothing, and yet to contradict? Unless perhaps they gave you some reason why they thought so, which you preferred to pass over in silence in your letters. But what that might be I do not know. Or perhaps, because we showed that God did this in the hearts of men and led the wills of those whom he pleased to the point that Saul or David was made king, they think these examples do not fit this cause, since to reign in time in this world is not the same as to reign for ever with God; and so they suppose that God inclines the wills of whom he will to set up earthly kingdoms, but does not incline the wills of whom he will to obtain the heavenly kingdom? But I think it was said with reference to the kingdom of heaven, not an earthly kingdom: “Incline my heart to your testimonies”; or, “The steps of a man are directed by the Lord, and he will will his way”; or, “The will is prepared by the Lord”; or, “May the Lord our God be with us as he was with our fathers; may he not forsake us nor turn us away from him; may he incline our hearts to him, that we may walk in all his ways”; or, “I will give them a heart to know me, and ears that hear”; or, “I will give them another heart, and I will give them a new spirit.” Let them hear this too: “I will put my Spirit within you, and make you walk in my ordinances, and keep my judgments and do them.” Let them hear: “A man's steps are directed by the Lord; how then can a mortal understand his ways?” Let them hear: “Every man seems righteous to himself, but the Lord directs the hearts.” Let them hear: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” Let them hear these and whatever others I have not mentioned, by which God is shown to prepare and turn the wills of men even for the kingdom of heaven and for eternal life. But consider what it would mean for us to believe that God works the wills of men to set up earthly kingdoms, while men work their own wills to lay hold of the kingdom of heaven.

We have said much, and perhaps we could long ago have persuaded them of what we wish, and still we speak to such good minds as though to dull ones, for whom even what is too much is not enough. But let them pardon us; for a new question has compelled us to this. For when in our earlier works we had shown by sufficiently suitable testimonies that faith too is the gift of God, an objection was found: that those testimonies avail to show that the increase of faith is the gift of God, but that the beginning of faith, by which one first believes in Christ, is from man himself and is not the gift of God; but that God requires this, so that when it has been added, the other things which are gifts of God follow as though by this merit; and that none of them is given freely, although in them the grace of God is preached, which is nothing if not free. You see how absurd this is; and therefore we have insisted, as far as we could, on showing that even the beginning of faith is the gift of God. And if we have done this at greater length than perhaps those for whose sake we did it would wish, we are ready to be blamed by them on this account, provided that, even if at much greater length than they would wish, even with the weariness and boredom of those who understand, they confess that we have done what we have done, that is, have taught that even the beginning of faith, like continence, patience, righteousness, godliness, and the rest, about which there is no dispute with them, is the gift of God. Let this, then, be the end of this volume, lest one volume give offence by its excessive length.