http://www.romancatholicism.org

 

 

 

Augustine of Hippo

 

To Simplician – On Various Questions

 

(De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum)

 

The translation is that of John H. S. Burleigh, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh and was published in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Volume VI of the Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953.)

 

 

Introductory note

 

This work contains Augustine’s early discussion of the doctrine of gratuitous election to salvation “ante praevisa merita”, of election without regard to foreseen co-operation or merits.

 

It is an early work in which he pondered why Jacob was elected and Esau reprobated when they were nowise different; he considered possible solutions and concluded that it was due simply to the will of God with no reason in the brothers. This is, of course, a figure of our own election or reprobation.

 

In this work, Augustine taught that grace is congruous to the recipient by giving him delight. God calls his elect in the manner that will produce their consent (ch. 13); he could effectually call all but has opted not to (ch. 14); he gives the elect a delight in those things by which they advance to him and gives them the assent, earnest effort and the power to do good (ch. 21).

 

This was his first literary production after becoming bishop of Hippo and was written about 396 in response to divers questions put to him by Simplician who succeeded Ambrose as bishop of Milan in 397. It contains the essential features that he would have to defend against the Pelagians for the rest of his life; his ultimate exposition of the matter is contained in his final, twofold book called, The Predestination of the Saints and The Gift of Perseverance.

 

We provide here the portion of the text discussing the question concerning predestination. Augustine later summed up this discussion in his Retractions as follows. (The Retractions are an overview of his life’s work, nothing in this discussion was retracted.)

 

“The second question concerns Romans 9:10-29. In answering this question I have tried hard to maintain the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God prevailed. Not otherwise could I reach the understanding that the apostle spoke with absolute truth when he said, “Who made thee to differ? What hadst thou that thou didst not received? But if thou didst receive it, why dodst thou glory as if thou didst not received it?” This truth Cyprian the martyr too wanted to make clear, and he expressed it completely in a phrase “In nothing must we glory since nothing is ours.”

 

If our co-operation and merits were not predestined then we should have something to boast of, which is contrary to all Christian humility.

 

The portion of the text of Paul to the Romans that Augustine commented on, regarding the gratuitous election by God of Jacob over Esau, is as follows.

 

10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24: Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25: As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26: And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27: Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29: And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

 

Professor Burleigh gave the following overview of the contents of Augustine’s discussion, according to the chapter divisions.

 

Here the much harder problem of the relation of grace and free-will is faced.

 

(2) The clue to its solution is to be sought in the purpose of the Epistle as a whole, which is to show that no man may glory in his own good works.

 

(3) This is strikingly illustrated in the extreme case of Jacob’s being chosen and Esau’s being rejected before either was born or had done aught of good or evil. There could have been no question of selection, or election, on the strength of good works performed, or even of faith, in either case.

 

(5) The suggestion must be ruled out that the selection was made on the ground of the presence or absence of faith or good works which God foresaw would be forthcoming.

 

(7) Faith is due to the calling of God and must be numbered among the gifts of grace. It is therefore not meritorious.

 

(8) If we say that God graciously calls a man, bestows faith upon him and the power to do good works, no difficulty arises; but

 

(10) why does he not do so in all cases? Is it because some are willing to hear and believe, and others are unwilling? For we cannot believe unwillingly.

 

(12) Formally we have the power to will, but the good will is the gift of God, so that even willing is not wholly ours.

 

(13) What, then, of those who reject God’s call? Can they frustrate his gracious purpose? Rather we must say that some are effectually called, others not so. To some the call is made in such a way that they will hear and obey. Others are hardened.

 

(16) Two truths are sure (a) There is no unrighteousness with God. (&) He treats men differently “as he wills.” There is a higher hidden justice which is, however, reflected in human affairs. A creditor may exact or remit a debt, and in neither case is he chargeable with injustice. Certainly the debtors have no cause for complaint. Man may not question the ways of God.

 

(17) Like the potter with the clay, God makes vessels, some to honour, some to dishonour.

 

(19) All men are made of one lump, a massa peccati, and some are to be saved, others are to be lost.

 

(21) To those whom he wills to save God provides a motive adequate to win them to faith and obedience.

 

(22) Election, therefore, precedes justification. God elects of his mere good pleasure those who are to be justified so that they may attain eternal life. Without election there can be neither faith nor obedience. But God’s judgments are inscrutable and his ways past finding out. For all that he does he is to be praised.

 

The text is as follows. We have added our own chapter headings.

 


 

 

1. Now I think it is time to turn to the second question you have propounded, which concerns the interpretation of Romans 9:10-29, from “Not only so, but Rebecca also conceived” down to “We had been made like unto Gomorrah.” You ask that the whole passage be discussed, and indeed it is rather obscure. But, to be sure, I know your regard for me and am certain that you would not bid me expound that passage unless you had prayed the Lord to give me the ability to do so. With confidence in his help I approach the task.

 

[Good works do not merit grace but follow from it]

 

2. First I shall try to grasp the apostle’s purpose which runs through the whole Epistle, and I shall seek guidance from it. It is that no man should glory in meritorious works, in which the Israelites dared to glory, alleging that they had served the law that had been given to them, and that for that reason they had received evangelical grace as due to their merits. So they were unwilling that the same grace should be given to the Gentiles, as if they were unworthy of it unless they undertook to observe the Jewish sacred rites. This problem arose and is settled in the Acts of the Apostles. The Jews did not understand that evangelical grace, just because of its very nature, is not given as a due reward for good works. Otherwise grace is not grace. In many passages the apostle frequently bears witness to this, putting the grace of faith before works; not indeed that he wants to put an end to good works, but to show that works do not precede grace but follow from it. No man is to think that he has received grace because he has done good works. Rather he could not have done good works unless he had received grace through faith. A man begins to receive grace from the moment when he begins to believe in God, being moved to faith by some internal or external admonition. But the fullness and evidentness of the infusion of grace depends on temporal junctures and on sacramental rites. Catechumens are not unbelievers, otherwise Cornelius did not believe in God, although by his prayers and alms he showed himself worthy to have an angel sent to him. But these good deeds would have had no effect had he not already believed; and he would not have believed had he not been called by some secret admonition coming through visions of the mind or spirit, or by more open admonitions reaching him through the bodily senses. In some there is the grace of faith, but not enough to obtain the kingdom of heaven, as in catechumens, or in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by participation in the sacraments. In others there is so much grace that they are already reputed to belong to the body of Christ and the holy temple of God. “The temple of God is holy,” says the apostle, “which temple ye are” (I Cor. 3:17). And the Lord himself says: “Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5). There are therefore inchoate beginnings of faith, which resemble conception. It is not enough to be conceived. A man must also be born if he is to attain to eternal life. None of these beginnings is without the grace of God’s mercy. And good works, if there are any, follow and do not precede that grace, as has been said.

 

[The same continued]

 

3. This is the truth the apostle wanted to urge; just as in another passage he says, “By the grace of God we are saved, and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. It is not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8,9). And so he gave a proof from the case of those who had not yet been born. No one could say that Jacob had conciliated God by meritorious works before he was born, so that God should say of him, “The elder shall serve the younger.” So “Not only so,” he says, was Isaac promised in the words, “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son” (Rom. 9:9). Now Isaac had not conciliated God by any previous meritorious works so that his birth should have been promised, and that in Isaac “Abraham’s seed should be called” (Gen. 21:12). That means that those are to belong to the lot of the saints in Christ who know that they are the sons of promise; who do not wax proud of their merits, but account themselves coheirs with Christ by the grace of their calling. When the promise was made that they should be this they did not as yet exist and so could have merited nothing. “Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac . . .” He is most careful to note that it was by one act of coition that twins were conceived so that nothing could be attributed to the merits of the father, as if someone might say the son was born such as he was because his father had such or such a disposition when he lay with his wife; or that his mother was disposed in such a way when she conceived a son. Both were begotten and conceived at one and the same time. And for another reason he stresses this fact, so as to give no opportunity to astrologers or to those who are called calculators of nativities, who conjecture the characters and destinies of those who are born from their natal hours. They can find absolutely no explanation why there was so great a diversity in these twins when they were conceived at one moment of time, and under the same position of the stars and the heavens, so that it was quite impossible to discover any thing wherein the one differed from the other. They can easily learn if they will that the replies they sell to poor deluded folk have no basis in any kind of scientific knowledge, but only in chance guesswork. But to return to the matter in hand, these things are related to break and cast down the pride of men who are not grateful for the grace of God but dare to glory in their own merits. “For the children being not yet born and having done nothing either good or evil, not of works but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.” Grace is therefore of him who calls, and the consequent good works are of him who receives grace. Good works do not produce grace but are produced by grace. Fire is not hot in order that it may burn, but because it burns. A wheel does not run nicely in order that it may be round, but because it is round. So no one does good works in order that he may receive grace, but because he has received grace. How can a man live justly who has not been justified? How can he live holily who has not been sanctified? Or, indeed, how can a man live at all who has not been vivified? Grace justifies so that he who is justified may live justly. Grace, therefore, comes first, then good works. As he says in another place, “To him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt” (Rom. 4:4). There is, of course, the passage where he speaks of immortality after good works, as if he really demands it as his due, for he says: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge, shall render to me at that day” (II Tim. 4:7-8). Do you think, perhaps, that because he said “shall render” he meant that it was his due? But when “he ascended on high and took captivity captive, he” did not render but “gave gifts to men.” How could the apostle speak presumptuously as of a debt being paid back to him, unless he had first received grace which was not due to him, being justified by which, he fought the good fight? For he was a blasphemer, a persecutor and injurious; but he obtained mercy as he testifies himself, believing in him who justifies, not the pious, but the ungodly, in order that by justifying him he may make him godly.

 

[On what basis is election made?]

 

4. “Not of works but of him that calleth it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” The point of this is made clear by the preceding words, “When they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or evil.” Clearly it was not of works but of him that calleth. But here we must inquire why he says, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand.” How can election be just, indeed how can there be any kind of election, where there is no difference? If Jacob was elected before he was born and before he had done anything at all, for no merit of his own, he could not have been elected at all, there being nothing to distinguish him for election. If Esau was rejected for no fault of his own because he too was not born and had done nothing when it was said, “The elder shall serve the younger,” how can his rejection be said to be just? How are we to understand what follows if we judge according to the standards of equity? “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Now that is written in the Prophet Malachi (1:2-3) who prophesied long after they were born and dead. Yet the sentence seems to be referred to which was spoken before they were born or had done anything. “The elder shall serve the younger.” But how could there be election, or what kind of election could there be, if there was no distinction of merits because they were not yet born and had done nothing? Possibly there was some distinction in their natures? Who could support such a conclusion, seeing that they sprang from one father, one mother, one act of intercourse, one creator? From the same land the same Creator can produce different kinds of living creatures. Can it be that the Creator produced from one human marriage and embrace twin offspring so diverse that he loved the one and hated the other? There would then be no election before that which was chosen existed. If Jacob was created good so that he might be loved, how could he be loved before he existed, in order that he might become good? Accordingly he was not elected that he might become good, but having been made good, he could be elected.

 

[Election is not in view of foreseen faith or works]

 

5. Could it be “according to election” because God has foreknowledge of all things, and foresaw the faith that was to be in Jacob even before he was born? No one merits justification by his good works, since unless he is justified he cannot do good works. Nevertheless God justifies the Gentiles by faith, and no one believes except of his own free will. So God, foreseeing that Jacob would believe of his own free will, by his foreknowledge elected to justify one not yet born? If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob’s faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him for his works? Neither Jacob nor Esau had yet believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works. So just as one says he was elected because God foreknew that he was going to believe, another might say that it was rather because of the good works he was to perform, since God foreknew them equally well. How then does the apostle show that it was not of works that it was said, “The elder shall serve the younger”? If the reason for its not being of works was that they were not yet born, that applies also to faith; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, did not want us to understand that it was because of God’s foreknowledge that the younger was elected to be served by the elder. He wanted to show that it was not of works, and he stressed that by saying, “When they were not yet born and had done neither good nor evil.” He could have said, if he wished to, that God already knew what each was going to do. We have still to inquire why that election was made. It was not of works, because being not yet born they had done no works. But neither was it of faith, because they had not faith either. What, then, was the reason for it?

 

[There is no election here that is according to foreseen merits]

 

6. Are we to say that there could have been no election unless there had been, even when they were in their mother’s womb, some difference of faith or works, or merit of some kind? But the apostle says, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand.” That is why we have to ask the question. Possibly we are to make a distinction here. Perhaps we should connect the words, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand,” with what precedes rather than with what follows. It may mean not that the elder shall serve the younger in order that the purpose of God according to election may stand, but rather that children, who are not yet born and have done nothing, are given as an example that no election is here to be understood. If we read, “When they were not yet born and had done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand,” it would mean that they had done neither good nor evil, so that there could be no election on account of his good deeds of the one who had done good. There could be no election on account of good works, according to which the purpose of God might stand. So, “not of works but of him that calleth,” that is, of God who justifies the ungodly by grace calling him to faith, “it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger.” So that the purpose of God does not stand according to election, but election is the result of the purpose of God. That is to say, it is not because God finds good works in men so that he may elect them, that his justifying purpose stands; but because his purpose to justify them that believe stands, he consequently finds good works which he can elect for the kingdom of heaven. If there was no election there could be no elect, and it would have been wrong to say, “Who shall lay any charge against God’s elect?” (Rom. 8:33). Election does not precede justification, but follows it. No one is elected unless he is different from him who is rejected. It is written that “God elected us before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). I do not see how that could be except by the way of foreknowledge. But here, when he says “Not of works but of him that calleth,” he wants us to understand that it is not by election through merits, but by the free gift of God, so that no man may exult in his good works. “By the grace of God are we saved; and that not of ourselves; for it is the gift of God, not of works that no man should glory” (Eph. 2:8).

 

[The divine call is of mercy and is not merited by faith, which follows the call]

 

7. But the question is whether faith merits a man’s justification, whether the merits of faith do not precede the mercy of God; or whether, in fact, faith itself is to be numbered among the gifts of grace. Notice that in this passage when he said, “Not of works,” he did not say, “but of faith it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger.” No, he said, “but of him that calleth.” No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. “How shall they believe whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom. 10:14). Unless, therefore, the mercy of God in calling precedes, no one can even believe, and so begin to be justified and to receive power to do good works. So grace comes before all merits. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from him that calleth and not from any meritorious works of his own. So the Scripture “Jacob have I loved” is true, but it was of God who called and not of Jacob’s righteous works.

 

[Neither was Esau’s reprobation deserved by evil works or lack of faith]