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was retracted.)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] 8. What then of Esau, of whom it is written that “he
shall serve the younger,” and “Esau have I hated”? How
could he have merited this by evil deeds of his own doing,
since these things were spoken before he was born, and before he
had done aught of good or evil? Possibly, just as Jacob
received the promise without any meritorious acts of his own, so
Esau was hated though he had done no evil to merit hatred. If
God predestined Esau to serve his younger brother because he foreknew the evil works that he was to do, he must also have
predestined Jacob to be served by his elder brother because he
foreknew his future good works. In that case it would be
false to say that it was not of works. If it is true that it was not
of works—and that is proved by the fact that it was said before
they were born and before they had done any works at all—or of
faith—for again, similarly, there could be no faith in
children not yet born
—how did Esau deserve to
be hated before he was born? That God made one he was
to love is unquestionably true. But it is absurd to say that he made some one
he was going to hate. For
another Scripture says,
“Thou abhorrest none of the things which thou
didst make; for never wouldest thou have formed anything if thou didst hate it” (Wisdom 11:24). By what merit
did the sun deserve to be made as it is? How did the moon
offend so as to be made so much inferior? How did the moon
earn the right to be made so much brighter than the other
stars? All these were created good each in its own kind. God
would not say “The sun have I loved, but the moon I have
hated,” or “The moon have I loved, but the stars have I hated,”
as he said “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” He
loved them all though he ordained them in different
degrees of excellence, for God saw that they were good when they were created at his Word. That he hated Esau is unjust unless the
hatred was merited by injustice on Esau’s part. If we admit
this, then Jacob must be loved because he had merited to be
loved by his justice. And if that is true, it is false to say
that it was not of works. Could it possibly be from the righteousness
of faith? But what support for that view can you get from the
words, “When they were not yet born”? Not even the righteousness
of faith can exist in one who is not yet born. [God mercifully calls whom he will
and bestows faith upon them and makes them compassionate that they may do
good works] 9. The apostle saw the questions that might arise in
the mind of the hearer or reader of these words, and so
he immediately added, “What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” And as if to teach us how
there is no unrighteousness, he goes on, “For he saith to Moses,
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show
compassion to him on whom I will have compassion.” Does he
solve the question in these words or at least narrow it down?
If God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and show
compassion to whom he will show compassion, our chief difficulty
remains, which is, why did his mercy fail in Esau’s case? Why
was not Esau too made good by God’s mercy as Jacob was made good? Perhaps the real import of the words is this.
If God will have mercy on a man so as to call him, he will also
have mercy on him so that he may believe; and on him on whom he
in mercy bestows faith he will show compassion, i.e.,
will make him compassionate, so that he may also perform good
works. So we are admonished that no one ought to glory or exult
in his works of mercy as if he had propitiated God by meritorious
works of his own. God gave him the power to be merciful when he
showed compassion on whom he would show compassion. If
anyone boasts that he has merited compassion by his faith,
let him know that God gave him faith. God shows compassion by inspiring faith in one on whom he had compassion in giving to
one who was still an unbeliever a share in his calling. For
already the believer is distinguished from the ungodly. “What
hast thou that thou didst not receive? But if thou didst
receive it, why dost
thou glory, as if thou
hadst not received it (I Cor. 4:7)? [Esau was not reprobated because he
was unwilling to receive the call] 10. This is all right,
but why was this mercy withheld from Esau, so that he
was not called and had not faith inspired in him when
called, and was not by faith made compassionate so that he might do good works? Was it because he was
unwilling? If Jacob had faith because he willed it, then God did
not give him faith as a free gift, but Jacob gave it to himself,
and so had something which he did not receive. Or can no one believe unless
he wills, or will unless he is called, and can no one
be called unless God by calling him also gives him faith? For no one
can believe unless he is called, although none can believe
against his will. “How shall they believe whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?” No one,
therefore, believes who has not been called, but not all believe who have been called. “For many are called but few are
chosen” (Matt. 22:14). The chosen are those who have not despised
him who calls, but have believed and followed him. There is
no doubt that they believed willingly. What then of what
follows? “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God
that hath mercy.” Does it
mean that we cannot even will unless we are called, and
that our willing is of no avail unless God give us
aid to perform it? We must both will and run. It would not be said in vain, “On earth peace to men of good
will” (Luke 2:14). And, “Even so run that ye may attain” (I Cor.
9:24). But it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that hath mercy, that we obtain what we wish and
reach what we desire. Esau, then, was unwilling and did
not run. Had he, been willing and had he run, he would have
obtained the help of God who by calling him would have given him
power both to will and to run, had he not been reprobate by despising the calling. There are two different
things that God gives us, the power to will and the thing that we
actually will. The power to will he has willed should be both his and ours,
his because he calls us, ours because we follow when
called. But what we actually will he alone gives, i.e., the
power to do right and to live happily for ever. But Esau was not yet born and
consequently could be neither willing nor unwilling in all these matters. Why was he rejected when he was still in
the womb? We come back to that difficulty, troubled not only by the obscurity
of the question but also by our own abundant repetition. [Election and reprobation are not in view of any
foreseen quality in the recipients] 11. Why was Esau rejected when he was not yet born
and could neither believe him who called, nor despise
his calling, nor do aught either good or evil? If it was because
God foreknew that his will was to be evil in the future, why was not Jacob approved because God foreknew that his will
was to be good? If you admit that anyone could have been
approved or rejected for some quality he did not yet possess,
but because God foreknew that he would possess it in the future, it
follows that he could also have been approved for the works which
God foreknew that he would perform some day, though he had as yet performed none of them. You will get no support at
all for that view from the fact that they were not born when it
was said, “The elder shall serve the younger.” You will not be
able to show from that that, because neither of them had done any
works, it could be said that the call was not “of works.” [The call is not received because we
consent to it with his help, rather we are also given to will and to do] 12. If you pay close attention to these words,
“Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that hath mercy,” you will see that the apostle said
that, not only because we attain what we wish by the help of
God, but also with the meaning which he expresses in another
passage, “Work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is
God which worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil.
2:12, 13). There he clearly shows that the good will
itself is wrought in us by the working of God. If he said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that hath mercy,” simply because a man’s will is not
sufficient for us to live justly and righteously unless we are
aided by the mercy of God, he could have put it the other way
round and said, “It is not of God that hath mercy, but of the
man that willeth,” because it is equally true that the mercy
of God is not sufficient of itself, unless there be in addition
the consent of our will. Clearly it is vain for us to will unless God
have mercy. But I do not know how it could be said that it is vain
for God to have mercy unless we willingly consent. If God has mercy,
we also will, for the power to will is given with the mercy
itself. It is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his
good pleasure. If we ask whether a good will is a gift of God, I
should be surprised if anyone would venture to deny that. But because the good will does not precede calling, but calling
precedes the good will, the fact that we have a good will is rightly
attributed to God who calls us, and the fact that we are called
cannot be attributed to ourselves. So the sentence, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy” cannot be taken to mean simply that we cannot attain
what we wish without the aid of God, but rather that without
his calling we cannot even will. [God (congruently) gives the call in
the way that the chosen will accept it and accordingly none can frustrate his
mercy] 13. But if that calling is the effectual cause of
the good will so that every one who is called follows it, how will it
be true that “Many are called but few are chosen”? If this is
true, and consequently not everyone who is called obeys the call, but has it in the power of his will not to obey, it could be
said correctly that it is not of God who hath mercy, but of the man
who willeth and runneth, for the mercy of him that calleth is not sufficient unless the obedience of him who is called
follows. Possibly those who are called in this way, and do not consent, might be able to direct their wills towards faith if they
were called in another way; so that it would be true that “Many are
called but few are chosen.” Many, that is to say, are called in
one way, but all are not affected in the same way; and those
only follow the calling who are found fit to receive it. It would
be no less true that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.” For God calls in the
way that is suited to those who follow his calling. The call
comes also to others; but because it is such that they cannot be
moved by it and are not fitted to receive it, they can be said
to be called but not chosen. And again it would not be true that it
is not of God who hath mercy but of man who willeth and runneth.
For the effectiveness of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man to frustrate, if he will have none of it. If God wills
to have mercy on men, he can call them in a way that is suited to
them, so that they will be moved to understand and to follow. It
is true, therefore, that many are called but few chosen. Those
are chosen who are effectually [congruenter] called.
Those who are not effectually called and do not obey their calling
are not chosen, for although they were called they did not
follow. Again it is true that “it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God
that hath mercy.” For, although he calls many, he has
mercy on those whom he calls in a way suited
to them so that they may follow. But it is false to say that “it is not of God who hath mercy but of man who
willeth and runneth,” because God has mercy on no man in vain.
He calls the man on whom he has mercy in the way he knows
will suit him, so that he will not refuse the call. [God had a way to effectually call
Esau but did not want to] 14. Here someone will say, why was not Esau called
in such a way that he would be willing to obey? We see that people are variously moved to believe when the same facts are
shown or explained to them. For example, Simeon believed in
our Lord Jesus Christ when he was still a little child, for
the Spirit revealed the truth to him. Nathanael heard but one sentence from him, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast
under the fig tree I saw thee” (John 1:48); and he replied,
“Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” Long
after, Peter made the same confession, and for that merit heard
himself pronounced blessed, and that the keys of the Kingdom
of Heaven were to be given to him. His disciples believed on
him when by a miracle in Cana of Galilee water was turned into
wine, which the evangelist John records as the beginning of the
signs of Jesus. He stirred many to believe by his words, but
many did not believe though the dead were raised. Even his
disciples were terrified and shattered by his cross and death, but
the thief believed at the very moment when he saw him not highly exalted but his own equal in sharing in crucifixion. One of
his disciples after his resurrection believed, not so much because
his body was alive again, as because of his recent wounds.
Many of those who crucified him, who had despised him while he was
working his miracles, believed when his disciples preached
him and did similar miracles in his name. Since, then, people
are brought to faith in such different ways, and the same thing
spoken in one way has power to move and has no such power when
spoken in another way, or may move one man and not another,
who would dare to affirm that God has no method of calling
whereby even Esau might have applied his mind and yoked his will
to the faith in which Jacob was justified? But if the
obstinacy of the will can be such that the mind’s aversion from all
modes of calling becomes hardened, the question is whether
that very hardening does not come from some divine penalty, as
if God abandons a man by not calling him in the way in
which he might be moved to faith. Who would dare to affirm
that the Omnipotent lacked a method of persuading even Esau
to believe? [God reprobates whom he will, causing
an unwillingness in him by not improving him] 15. But why do we ask
such a question? The apostle himself goes on. “The
Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that
I might show in thee my power,
and that my name might be
published abroad in all the earth.” The apostle adds
this as an example to prove what he had said above,
that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy.” As if someone had said to him, What is the source of this
doctrine of yours? His reply is
“The Scripture saith unto
Pharaoh” etc. Thus he shows that it is not of him that
willeth but of God that hath mercy. And he concludes
with these words: “So then he hath mercy on whom he
will, and whom he will he hardeneth.” Earlier he had not stated both of these truths. He said: “It is not of
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath
mercy”; but he did not say “It is not of him that is unwilling, nor
of him that contemneth, but of God who causeth the hardening of
the heart.” So by putting both sides—he hath mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth—we are given to
understand that the new statement agrees with the former one, viz., the hardening which God causes is an
unwillingness to be merciful. We must not think that anything is
imposed by God whereby a man is made worse, but only that he
provides nothing whereby a man is made better. But if there
be no distinction of merits who would not break out into the objection which the apostle brings against himself? “Thou wilt
say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who
withstandeth his will?” God often finds fault with men because
they will not believe and live righteously, as is apparent from
many passages of Scripture. Hence faithful people who do the will
of God are said to walk blamelessly, because Scripture finds no
fault with them. But he says, “Why does he find fault? Who
withstandeth his will” though “he hath mercy on whom he will and
whom he will he hardeneth.” Let us look at what was said
above and let it direct our interpretation as the Lord himself
gives us aid. [Election and reprobation
are just because all are sinners, having sinned in Adam] 16. The apostle said a little before, “What shall we
say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” Let
this truth, then, be fixed and unmovable in a mind soberly pious
and stable in faith, that there is no unrighteousness with God.
Let us also believe most firmly and tenaciously that God has
mercy on whom he will and that whom he will he hardeneth,
that is, he has or has not mercy on whom he will. Let us believe
that this belongs to a certain hidden equity that cannot be searched out by any human standard of measurement, though its
effects are to be observed in human affairs and earthly arrangements.
Unless we had stamped upon these human affairs certain
traces of supernal justice our weak minds would never look up
to or long for the holy and pure ground and source of spiritual
precepts. “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after
righteousness, for they shall be filled.” In the drought of our mortal
condition in this life it would be a case of being burnt up
rather than of merely thirsting, did not some gentle breath of justice from
on high scatter showers upon us. Human society is knit
together by transactions of giving and receiving, and things are
given and received sometimes as debts, sometimes not. No one
can be charged with unrighteousness who exacts what is
owing to him. Nor certainly can he be charged with unrighteousness
who is prepared to give up what is owing to him. This
decision does not lie with those who are debtors but with the
creditor. This image
or, as I said, trace of
equity is stamped on the business transactions of men by the Supreme Equity.
Now all men are a mass of
sin, since, as the
apostle says, “In Adam all die” (I Cor. 15:22), and
to Adam the entire human race traces the origin of its sin against God. Sinful humanity must pay a debt of
punishment to the supreme divine justice. Whether that debt is
exacted or remitted there is no unrighteousness. It would be a mark of pride if the debtors claimed to decide to whom the debt
should be remitted and from whom it should be exacted; just as
those who were hired to work in the vineyard were unjustly
indignant when as much was given to the others as was duly
paid to themselves (Matt. 20:11 ft.). So the apostle represses the impudent questioner. “O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?” A man so speaks back to God when he is displeased
that God finds fault with sinners, as if God compelled any
man to sin when he simply does not bestow his justifying mercy on
some sinners, and for that reason is said to harden some sinners;
not because he drives them to sin but because he does not have
mercy upon them. He decides who are not to be offered mercy by
a standard of equity which is most secret and far removed from
human powers of understanding. “Inscrutable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out” (Rom. 11:33). He justly
finds fault with sinners because he does not compel them to sin.
Justly also he has mercy on some that they may have this
calling, to be heartily penitent when God finds fault with sinners,
and to turn to his grace. He finds fault, therefore, both justly
and mercifully. [The same continued] 17. To be sure, no one resists his will. He aids
whom he will and he leaves whom he will. Both he who is aided and
he who is left belong to the same mass of sin. Both deserve
the punishment which is exacted from the one and remitted to the
other. If you are troubled by this, “O man, who art thou that
repliest against God?” I think “man” has the same meaning here as in
that other passage: “Are ye not men and walk according to
man?” There the word denotes carnal and animal people to
whom it is said, “I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual
but as unto carnal ... for ye were not yet able to bear it, nay not even now are ye able, for ye are yet carnal” (I Cor. 3:1-3).
And again, “The animal (natural) man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:14). So the apostle
continues in our present passage. “O man who art thou that repliest against
God? Does the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
didst thou make me thus? Hath not the potter power over
the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel unto honour
and another unto dishonour?” Possibly he shows clearly enough that he is speaking to the carnal man because he refers
to the clay from which the first man was formed; and because, as
I have recalled, according to the same apostle all die in
Adam, he speaks as if all formed one mass. Though one vessel
is made unto honour and another unto dishonour, nevertheless that
which is made unto honour must begin as carnal and rise to
the spiritual state. Though they were made unto honour and were
already born in Christ, yet because he was addressing them
still as children he even calls them carnal, saying, “I could
not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As
babes in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat, for ye
were not able to bear it, nay not even now are ye able, for ye are
yet carnal.” He says they are carnal though they have been born
in Christ and are babes in Christ and must be fed with milk.
In adding “Nor are ye yet able” he shows that those who make
progress will one day be able, because, seeing that they have
already been spiritually reborn, grace has begun its work in
them. These people were, therefore, already “vessels made
unto honour,” to whom it could nevertheless be rightly
said, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” If
that can be rightly said to such people, much more can it be
said to those who either are not yet so regenerated, or even have
been made unto dishonour. Only let us hold fast with
unshakable faith the
fact that there is no
unrighteousness with God; so that, whether he
remits or exacts the debt, he cannot rightly be charged with unrighteousness by him from whom he exacts it; and
he who receives remission ought not to glory in his own
merits. The former pays back nothing but what he owes, and the
latter has nothing that he has not received. [The same; God creates the reprobate
for the benefit of those who are called and that his mercy might be evident] 18. At this point we must try, if the Lord will help
us, to see how both of these Scripture passages can be true:
“Thou hatest nothing that thou hast made” and “Jacob I have
loved, but Esau have I hated.” The potter, remember, made one
vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. Now, if he
hated Esau because he was a vessel made unto dishonour, how could it be true that “Thou hatest nothing which thou hast
made.” For in that case God hated Esau though he had
himself made him a vessel unto dishonour. This knotty problem is
solved if we understand God to be the artificer of all creatures.
Every creature of God is good. Every man is a creature as
man but not as sinner. God is the creator both of the body and
of the soul of man. Neither of these is evil, and God hates
neither. He hates nothing which he has made. But the soul is more
excellent than the body, and God is more excellent than both soul
and body, being the maker and fashioner of both. In man he
hates nothing but sin. Sin in man is perversity and lack of order,
that is, a turning away from the Creator who is more excellent,
and a turning to the creatures which are inferior to him.
God does not hate Esau the man, but hates Esau the sinner. As it
is said of the Lord, “He came unto his own, and his own received
him not” (John 1:11). To them also he said himself, “For this
cause ye hear not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:47).
How can they be “his own” and yet be “not of God”? The first
statement must be taken as regarding them as men whom the Lord
himself had made, the second as regarding them as sinners whom
the Lord rebuked. They are both men and sinners, men as
fashioned by God, sinners by their own wills. Was not Jacob a
sinner, then, seeing that God loved him? But God loved in him, not
the sin which he had blotted out, but the grace which he had
freely given him. Christ died for the ungodly not that they
should remain ungodly, but that they should be justified and converted from their impiety, believing in him who justifies
the ungodly. For God hates impiety. In some he punishes it with
damnation, in others he removes it by justification, doing what
he judges right in his inscrutable judgments. Those of the
number of the godless whom he does not justify he makes “vessels
unto dishonour”; but he does not hate that in them which he has made, though of course they are hateful in so far as they
are godless. In so far as he has made them vessels, he made them
for some use, that “vessels made unto honour” may learn from
the penalties duly ordained for the evil. Accordingly,
God does not hate them as men or as vessels, that is, not in so
far as he created them and ordained their punishment. He hates nothing
which he has made. In making them vessels of perdition he
makes them for the correction of others. He hates their
impiety which he did not make. A judge hates theft, but he does
not hate sending the thief to the mines. The thief is responsible for the
crime, the judge for the sentence. So God, in making vessels of perdition
from the lump of the impious, does not hate what he does, i.e., his work of ordaining due penalty for those
who perish; for thereby those on whom he has mercy may find an
opportunity of salvation. So it was said to Pharaoh, “For this
very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my
power and that my name might be published abroad in all the
earth.” This demonstration of the power of God and proclamation
of his name in all the earth is of advantage to those to
whom it is a calling perfectly suited to their condition, so that
they may learn from it to fear and to correct their ways. So the
apostle goes on: “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make
his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of
wrath fitted unto destruction. . . ?” Through all this you can hear
as an undertone, “Who art thou that repliest against God?”
That must be understood as a recurring refrain—if God, willing
to show his wrath, endured vessels of wrath, who art thou that
repliest against God? But not only is it to be understood
with the words just quoted, but also with the words that follow,
“That he might make known the riches of his glory upon
vessels of mercy.” There is no advantage for vessels fitted unto
destruction that God patiently endures them, to destroy them in due
order and to use them as a means of salvation for those on
whom he has mercy. But there is advantage for those for whose
salvation God uses this means. As it is written, “The just shall
wash his hands in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10), i.e., he
shall be cleansed from evil works by the fear of God when he sees the
punishment of sinners. That God shows his wrath in bearing with
vessels of wrath avails to set a useful example to others, but
also to “make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy
which he prepared unto glory.” The hardening of the ungodly
demonstrates two things—that a man should fear and turn to God in piety, and that thanks should be given for his mercy
to God who shows by the penalty inflicted on some the greatness
of his gift to others. If the penalty he exacts from the former
is not just, he makes no gift to those from whom he does not exact
it. But because it is just, and there is no unrighteousness
with God who punishes, who is sufficient to give thanks to him?
For he remits a debt which, if God wanted to exact it, no man
could deny was justly due. [Gentiles and Jews are all one mass
of sinners; God elects to salvation some of each, not according to any merits
of theirs] 19. “Us he also called, not from the Jews only, but
also from the Gentiles.” That is to say, we also are vessels
of mercy which he has prepared unto glory. He did not call all the
Jews, but some of them. Nor did he call all the Gentiles but some of them. From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and
godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one
lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of
one lump of clay makes one vessel unto honour and another unto
dishonour, it is manifest that God has made of the Jews some vessels unto honour and others unto dishonour, and similarly
of the Gentiles. It follows that all must be understood to
belong to one lump. Then the apostle begins to bring forward
prophetic attestation to both of these classes, but he
reverses the order.
For he had spoken first
of the Jews and then of the Gentiles, but he
first brings forward testimony concerning the Gentiles and then concerning the Jews. “As Hosea says, I will
call that my people which was not my people, and her beloved,
which was not beloved. And it shall be, that in the place
where it was said, Ye are not my people, there they shall be called
sons of the living God.” This must be understood as spoken of
the Gentiles because they had no one fixed place of sacrifices as
the Jews had at Jerusalem. The apostles were sent to the Gentiles
that all who believed, wherever they believed, might in that
place offer a sacrifice of praise, because God had given them the
power to become sons of God. “And Isaiah crieth concerning
Israel.” Lest it should be believed that all Israelites had
gone to perdition, he teaches that from among them, too, some were made vessels unto honour, others unto dishonour. “If,” he
says, “the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of
the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” The multitude of the others
are vessels fitted for destruction. “The Lord will consummate
his Word upon earth and cut it short” that is, he will save
by grace those who believe, using the short way of faith and not
the innumerable observances which like a servile yoke pressed hard upon the Jewish multitude. By grace he consummated his Word
to us and cut it short upon earth, saying “My yoke is easy
and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). A little later the
apostle writes, “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy
heart; that is the word of faith which we preach, because if thou
shalt confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shalt believe
in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and
with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:8
ff.). This is the finished and short Word that God has done
upon earth. By its perfection and brevity the thief was justified
who, when all his limbs were nailed to the cross, had these two
free; with the heart he believed unto righteousness, and with the mouth he made confession unto salvation. For this merit he
was told immediately: “To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Good works would have followed if after receiving grace
he had continued to live for a time among men. They certainly did not precede so that he might have merited that grace,
for he had been crucified as a robber, and from the cross was
translated to paradise. “And as Isaiah had prophesied, Except the
Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom,
and had been made like unto Gomorrah.” “Had left us a seed”
in this passage is equivalent to “a remnant shall be saved”
in the other. For the rest perished as a due punishment, being
vessels of perdition. That all did not perish as in Sodom and
Gomorrah is due not to any merit of their own but to the grace
of God that left a seed from which should spring another harvest
throughout the whole earth. So he writes a little later. “Even
so then at this present time a remnant is saved by the election of
grace. But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. What then? That which Israel sought he did
not obtain; but the election obtained it, and the rest were
blinded” (Rom. 11:5 ff.). The vessels of mercy obtained it and the
vessels of wrath were blinded. Yet all were of the same lump as
in the fulness of the Gentiles. [The same continued] 20. There is a certain passage of Scripture which is
highly relevant to the matter we are dealing with, and
which wonderfully confirms what I have been urging. It is in the book which some call Jesus Sirach and others Ecclesiasticus.
There it is written: “All men are from the ground, and Adam was
created of earth. In the abundance of his discipline the
Lord separated them and changed their ways. Some of them he blessed
and exalted. Some he sanctified and brought nigh to
himself. Some of them he cursed and brought low, and turned them
to their dissensions. As the clay is in the potter’s hand to
form and fashion it, and all his ways are according to his
good pleasure, so is man in the hand of him that made him, and he
will render to him according to his judgment. Good is set over
against evil, and life over against death. So is the sinner over
against the godly. Thus look upon all the works of the most
High, two and two, one against another” (Ecclesiasticus 33:10
ff.). First God’s discipline is commended. “In the abundance of his
discipline God separated them”—from what if not from the
blessedness of paradise. “And he changed their ways”—that they
might now live as mortals. Then, of all was formed one mass
coming from inherited sin and the penalty of mortality, though God formed and created what was good. In all there is form and
the fitting together of the body in such concord of the members
that the apostle can use it as an illustration of how charity
is obtained. In all the spirit of life vivifies the earthly
members, and man’s whole nature is wonderfully attuned as the soul
rules and the body obeys. But carnal concupiscence now reigns as a
result of the penalty of sin, and has thrown the whole human
race into confusion, making of it one lump in which the
original guilt remains throughout. And yet he goes on: “Some of
them he blessed and exalted. Some he sanctified and brought
nigh to himself. Some he cursed and brought low, and turned
them to their dissensions.” He continues in words like those
of the apostle: “Has not the potter power over the clay, of
the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto
dishonour?” He has the same similitude: “As the clay is in the potter’s hand to form and to fashion it, and all his
ways are according to his good pleasure, so is man in the hand
of him that made him.” The apostle says: “Surely there is
no unrighteousness with God?” Sirach adds: “He will render unto him according to his judgment.” Just punishments are
allotted to the damned. But even this is put to a good use,
for those learn from it who have obtained mercy, as he says: “Good
is set over against evil, and life over against death, so is the
sinner over against the godly. So look upon all the works of the
most High; two and two, one against the other.” The better
stand out and learn from comparison with the worse. Now these
better are made better by grace. He hardly says that a remnant
shall be saved, but he goes on to speak as one of the
remnant. “I awaked up last, as one that gleaneth after the
grape-gatherers.” How
does he prove that it was
not for his own merits but by the mercy of
God? “By the blessing of God I hoped, and filled my winepress as one that
gathereth grapes.” Though it awaked last, because, as it is said, the last
shall be first, a people hoping in the blessing
of God gleaned from the remnant of Israel and filled its
winepress from the riches of the harvest which the whole earth produces. [God gives the elect a delight in
those things by which they advance to him; he gives the voluntary assent, the
effort and the power to accomplish] 21. The apostle, therefore, and all those who have
been justified and have demonstrated for us the
understanding of grace, have no other intention than to show that he
that glories should glory in the Lord. Who will call in question the
works of the Lord who out of one lump damns one and
justifies another? Free will is most important. It exists, indeed, but of
what value is it in those who
are sold under sin? “The flesh,” says he, “‘lusteth
against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh so that ye may not do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).
We are commanded to live righteously, and the reward is set
before us that we shall merit to live happily for ever. But
who can live righteously and do good works unless he has been
justified by faith? We are commanded to believe that we may
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and become able to do good
works by love. But who can believe unless he is reached by
some calling, by some testimony borne to the truth? Who has it in
his power to have such a motive present to his mind that his
will shall be influenced to believe? Who can welcome in his mind
something which does not give him delight? But who has it in
his power to ensure that something that will delight him will
turn up, or that he will take delight in what turns up? If those
things delight us which serve our advancement towards God, that is due
not to our own whim or industry or meritorious works, but
to the inspiration of God and to the grace which he
bestows. He freely bestows upon us voluntary assent, earnest effort, and the
power to perform works of fervent charity. We are bidden
to ask that we may receive, to seek that we may find, and to
knock that it may be opened unto us. Is not our prayer sometimes
tepid or rather cold? Does it not sometimes cease altogether,
so that we are not even grieved to notice this condition in us?
For if we are grieved that it should be so, that is already a
prayer. What does this prove except that he who commands us to ask,
seek and knock, himself gives us the will to obey? “It is not
of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy.” We could neither will nor run unless he stirred us
and put the motive-power in us. [The same continued] 22. If by the words “a
remnant according to the election of grace” we are to
understand not election of the justified to eternal
life, but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is verily hidden, and cannot be
known by us who must regard all men as parts of one lump. If,
however, some are able to know it, I confess my own weakness
in this matter. If I am allowed speculatively to examine
such election of men to saving grace, I have nothing to go by but
the greater abilities of some, or their relative freedom from
sin, or, may I add if you please, their honourable and profitable
doctrines. In that case the man would seem to be fit to be elected
to grace who was snared and stained by the most trifling sins
(for who indeed has no sins?), or who had a keen mind, or was
cultivated in the liberal
arts. But if I set up this standard of judgment, he will
deride me who has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong, and the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise. Looking to him I should be ashamed; and being corrected I in turn would mock at many who are pure
by comparison with some sinners, and many who are cultivated orators by comparison with certain fishermen. Don’t we see
that many of our faithful people walking in the way of God
cannot be compared for ability, I will not say with certain
heretics, but even with comic actors? Don’t we see some, men and
women, living blamelessly in pure marriage, who are either
heretics or pagans or are so lukewarm in the true faith and the
true Church that we marvel to see them surpassed not only
in patience and temperance but also in faith, hope and
charity by harlots and actors who have been suddenly converted?
The only possible conclusion is that it is wills that are
elected. But the will itself can have no motive unless something
presents itself to delight and stir the mind. That this should
happen is not in any man’s power. What did Saul will but to attack,
seize, bind and slay Christians? What a fierce, savage, blind
will was that! Yet he was thrown prostrate by one word from on
high, and a vision came to him whereby his mind and will were
turned from their fierceness and set on the right way towards
faith, so that suddenly out of a marvellous persecutor of the
Gospel he was made a still more marvellous preacher of the Gospel.
And yet what shall we say? “Surely there is no
unrighteousness with
God” who exacts
punishment from whom he will and remits punishment
to whom he will; who never exacts what is not due, and
never remits what he might not exact? “Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid.” Why then does he deal thus with this
man and thus with that man? “O man, who art thou?” If you
do not have to pay what you owe, you have something to be grateful for. If you have to pay it you have no
reason to complain. Only let us believe if we cannot grasp it, that he who made and fashioned the whole creation, spiritual and
corporeal, disposes of all things by number, weight and measure. But his judgments are inscrutable and his ways past
finding out. Let us say alleluia and praise him together in song;
and let us not say, What is this? or, Why is that? All things
have been created each in its own time. |
St.
Augustine, Doctor of Grace |
