On the Predestination of the Saints

The anti-Pelagian work “On the Predestination of the Saints” (Chapter 21) was written by Bl. Aurelius Augustine in 428-429. The treatise talks about the relationship between Divine predestination and free will. The main theme of the treatise is that faith, even at the very beginning, is a gift dependent on predestination, the reason for which is hidden in God. Another topic is defense against accusations of introducing novelty into one’s own teaching. For example, in the doctrine of the source of faith, Bl. Augustine acknowledged that he had previously thought and written that faith was not a divine gift and should be attributed to human action rather than to prevenient grace. Also, election depends on foreknowledge of the “merit of faith,” not on grace. Now the Bishop of Hippo rejects his earlier teaching as incorrect. According to his revised view, faith is a divine gift. Otherwise, the basis of human salvation was not Divine grace, but human merit. Blzh. Augustine portrays the Christian life from beginning to end as a gift of grace. As a result, it turns out that the activity of a Christian is real only in the aspect of perception, and not in the aspect of his own contribution, i.e. the human “I” is not capable of being the initiator of its own will and action. The ideas of merit and reward look like this: grace is the reward of grace itself on the basis of pre-eternal predestination. *The title of the work in Latin is De praedestinatione sanctorum ad Prosperum et Hilarium. First Book to Prosper and Hilary Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 1. We know that the apostle said in the Epistle to the Philippians: “It is not a burden for me to write to you about the same things, but it is edifying for you” (Phil. 3:1). However, he also said when he wrote to the Galatians: “With other things, let no one trouble me,” or, as is read in many codes: “Let no one burden me” (Gal. 6:17). For he saw that he had labored enough with them in the ministry of his word, as far as he considered it necessary for them. For my part, I confess: it is painful to me that some do not submit to so many and obvious divine utterances, by which the grace of God is proclaimed (which is absolutely not such if it is given in accordance with merit). But you, dear sons Prosper and Hilary, out of your zeal and brotherly love, do not want the disobedient to continue to go astray, and therefore, even after so many of my books and letters on this topic, you want me to write to you from here. I love your zeal so much that I cannot express it in words; and, however, I do not dare say that I love as I should. Therefore, here I am writing to you again, and although I am no longer with you, through you I continue to do what I thought I had already done enough. 2. You piously take care of your brothers so that they do not adhere to the opinion of the poets, which says: “Everyone is his own hope” (Virgil. “Aeneid”, book 11, art. 309), - but would resort to what not the poets, but the prophets said: “Cursed is everyone who trusts in a man” (Jeremiah 17: 5). So, after considering your letters, it seems to me that I know that these brothers should be treated according to the reasoning of the apostle, for he says to them: “And if you think otherwise, God will also reveal it to you.” Even if the question of the predestination of the saints is still vague for them, but if they think something else about it, then they still have something from which God would reveal this to them, if they hold on to what has been achieved. no less adds: “However, to what we have achieved... we must live by that rule” (Phil. 3, 15-16). These brothers of ours, for whom your pious love cares, have achieved what they believe together with the Church of Christ: because of the sin of the first man, the human race is born guilty, and no one is freed from this evil except by the righteousness of the second man. They have also reached the point where they agree: human will is preceded by the grace of God, and no one can be sufficient for himself, both for the beginning and for the accomplishment of any good deed. So, by holding on to what they have achieved, they in many ways lead themselves away from the error of the Pelagians. Therefore, if they live in this and pray to the One who gives reason, then even if they think differently about predestination, He Himself will also reveal this to them. But we, too, will give them love and verbal service, according to the gift of Him Whom we ask to say in this letter something suitable and useful for them. After all, how do we know: will our God want to do this through our service, which we serve them freely in the love of Christ? 3. So, we must show that faith, because of which we are Christians, is the gift of God - if only we can do this more diligently than we have shown in so many volumes. But first, I think, we should respond to those who say that the divine evidence we have cited has the following meaning: they say, we have faith itself from ourselves, and its growth comes from God. As if faith is not given to us from Him, but only grows in us from Him, in accordance with the merit that it began from ourselves! So, they continue to hold the opinion that Pelagius himself at the episcopal court in Palestine, as the minutes of that meeting testify, was forced to condemn: “The grace of God is bestowed according to our merits.” After all, in their opinion, the action of God’s grace is not revealed in the fact that we begin to believe, but rather in the fact that because of this we are given the ability to believe more fully and perfectly. And therefore, first we give to God the beginning of our faith, so that we may be rewarded with an addition to it; and the same thing happens if we faithfully ask for anything else. 4. But against this, why don’t we rather hear: “Whoever gave to Him first will also be rewarded? For all things are from Him, and by Him, and in Him” (Rom. 11:35–36)? And the very beginning of our faith comes from whom, if not from Him? For everything else is from Him, not excluding this: “All things are from Him, and by Him, and in Him.” Who will say that someone who has already begun to believe does not deserve anything from the One in whom he has believed? Whence comes it that to those who have already deserved it, they say, the rest is added according to divine reward; and therefore the grace of God is given according to our merits? Pelagius himself, when he was objected to, condemned this opinion, so as not to be condemned. So, anyone who wants to avoid this condemned opinion in all respects, truly comprehend what the apostle said: “For Christ’s sake it has been granted to you, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him” (Phil. 1:29). The apostle shows that both are the gift of God, since both are given. And he does not say: “In order to believe in Him more fully and perfectly,” but: “In order to believe in Him.” And he did not say that he himself received mercy in order to be more faithful, but in order to be faithful (1 Cor. 7:25). For he knew that he did not first give the beginning of his faith to God, but afterward he was rewarded by Him with its growth; but that he himself was made faithful by Him, from Whom he was made an apostle. For it is also written about the beginning of his faith (Acts 9), and this place is the most famous of the festive church readings. Namely, he, burning with hostility towards the faith he was persecuting and fiercely resisting it, was unexpectedly turned to it by a more powerful grace. Converted by the One who was to do this, according to the word of the prophet: “By converting, you will revive us” (Ps. 84:7) - so that not only from the unwilling one would become willing to believe, but also to endure persecution from the persecutor, defending the faith that he had previously persecuted. Thus, he was granted not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him. 5. And therefore, speaking about that grace that is not given according to any merits, but produces all merits, the apostle says: “Not because we ourselves are able to think anything of ourselves, but our ability is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5). Here let those who think that the beginning of faith comes from us, and its growth from God, listen and weigh these words. For who does not see that before believing, one must think? No one will believe in anything unless he first thinks that it should be believed. True, some thoughts fly through the head quickly and instantly, and the desire to believe that follows them arises so quickly that it seems to simultaneously accompany the thoughts. And yet it is necessary that whatever is believed should be preceded by reflection in order for it to be believed. Although believing is nothing more than thinking about something with agreement. After all, not everyone who thinks believes: many think in order not to believe. But every believer thinks, and he thinks by believing, and he believes by reflecting. Therefore, the same applies to religion and godliness (as the apostle spoke about). After all, if we are not able to think anything as if from ourselves, but our ability is from God, then, obviously, we are not capable of believing in anything from ourselves (which is impossible without reflection), but the ability to begin to believe comes from God. So, if no one is sufficient in himself to begin and complete any good deed (with which truth these brothers, judging by your message, already agree), if in every good deed, both begun and completed, our ability comes from God, then for the beginning of faith, and for completing it, no one is sufficient for himself, but our ability is from God. For there is no faith without reflection, and we are not able to think anything from ourselves, but our ability comes from God. 6. We must be careful, brothers beloved by God, that a person does not exalt himself before God, saying that he himself has done what God promised. Wasn’t the faith of the pagans promised to Abraham, and he, having given glory to God, did not believe in it completely - “for what he promised he was able to do” (Rom. 4:20-21)? So, He Himself creates faith in the pagans - He who is able to fulfill what was promised. Further, if God produces our faith, working miraculously in our hearts so that we believe, then should we really be afraid that He will not be able to create everything completely? Is it really necessary for a person to appropriate the first fruits for himself in order to earn what follows from Him? Look what comes out of this: isn’t it that grace is in some way given according to our merits and, therefore, is no longer grace? For in this case, what is due is given, and not given freely: the believer is supposed to have the Lord increase his faith, and increased faith is the reward of faith begun. And they do not pay attention, when they say this, that this reward is imputed to believers not by grace, but by duty. I don’t understand: why not then attribute everything to a person - so that the one who managed to acquire what he did not have would himself increase what he acquired? Is it because it is impossible to resist divine utterances, where faith itself, from which the beginning of piety comes, appears as a gift of God. This also includes the fact that “God has assigned to everyone a measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3); and that “peace to the brothers and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 6:23), and other similar things. So, not having the desire to resist these such clear testimonies, but at the same time wanting to attribute the acquisition of faith to himself, a person presents himself as a co-worker with God: he appropriates part of the faith for himself, and leaves a part for God - moreover, he takes the first part himself, and gives the next to Him. And in what he says comes from both, he makes himself proactive and God subsequent. 7. That pious and humble teacher did not think so - I’m talking about the blessed Cyprian - who said: “We should not boast in anything, since nothing is ours” (To Quirinus, book 3, chapter 4). To prove this, he presented as evidence the words of the apostle: “What have you that you have not received? If you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor. 4:7). This testimony especially exposes my error when I believed that the faith by which we believe in God is not a gift of God, but exists in us from ourselves, and through it we are given gifts from God with the help of which we would live moderately, righteously and piously in the present age. I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that through it everything that we would ask for benefit would be given to us - except in the sense that we could not believe unless the truth had first been proclaimed. But the fact that after the preaching of the Gospel we agree with it, I believed, belongs to ourselves and comes from us. Some of my own writings, written before the episcopate, show this error quite clearly. Among these works is the one mentioned in your letter (In the Epistle of Hilary, n. 3, above, col. 955-956), which sets out some statements from the Epistle to the Romans. Finally, when I was revising all my works, making amendments to them - and had already completed two books of this work before I received your more extensive message - then, turning to the revision of this book in the first volume, I said to myself: “Reflecting in this way, what has God chosen in the unborn, whom he said the elder would serve? And what in the same elder, also unborn, did he reject?” For this reason, prophetic testimony is given about them, although expressed much later: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:13; Malach. 1:2-3). Then I began to reason as follows: so, God did not choose the works of everyone in foreknowledge of what He Himself would allow to be done; but He chose faith in foreknowledge that He Himself chose the one who was to believe in Him. He gave him the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good he would also receive eternal life. At that time I had not yet examined more closely the question of what the election of grace is. About him the same apostle says: “A remnant is preserved by the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). And grace, of course, is not grace if it is preceded by any merit: after all, what is given according to merit rather than given would be rewarded not according to grace, but according to duty. The Apostle says: “There is one and the same God, who works all things in all” (1 Cor. 12:6). But nowhere does it say that God entrusts everything to everyone. Therefore, following the word of the apostle, I added: therefore, what we believe belongs to us; that we do good belongs to Him who gives the Holy Spirit to believers. Obviously, I would not say this if I already knew that faith itself is also among the gifts of God, sent down by the same Spirit. So, both are ours because of the judgment of the will - and, however, both are given by the Spirit of faith and love. For not only love is given, but, as it is written, “Love with faith comes from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 6:23). And what I said a little later: “For it is ours to believe and to desire; “He gives to believers and those who wish the opportunity to do good through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is poured out into our hearts,” is true, but must be understood according to the same rule: both belong to Him, since He prepares the will; and at the same time belongs to us, since it is done only by our will. And therefore what I said also after: “Since we cannot will unless we are called; and when, after the calling, we desire, our will and our desire are not sufficient, except if God gives strength to those who strive, and leads them to where he calls,” and then added: “So, it is clear that it is not from him who desires, not from him who strives, but “from God who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16) that we do good,” - all this is said absolutely correctly. However, I then considered little the calling itself - that which occurs according to the intention of God: for it, this calling, is not such for all those who are called, but only for the elect. Also what was said a little later: “For just as in those whom God has chosen, it is not works, but faith that serves as the beginning of that merit, so that by the gift of God they then do good, so in those whom He condemns, infidelity and impiety begin to deserve punishment, so that also because of this punishment they do evil,” - all this is said most truly. But whether the merit of faith itself is a gift of God - I did not even think to investigate this, and did not say about it. And in another place: “For “whom he has mercy on” he causes to do good; and whomever he “hardens” (Rom. 9:18), he leaves to do evil: but even that mercy is attributed to the previous merit of faith, and this is the hardening of previous unrighteousness,” this, of course, is true. But it remains to be seen whether the merit of faith also comes from the mercy of God, that is, whether this mercy is invested in a person because he is faithful, or in order for him to become faithful. For we read from the Apostle: “I received mercy that I might be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25). He does not say, “Because I have been faithful.” So, mercy is given to the faithful - but it is also given so that he becomes faithful. Thus, very correctly, I said in another place in the same book: “For if it is not by works, but by the mercy of God that we are called to believe, and it is granted to us who believe that we do good, then this mercy should not be envied by the pagans.” Although there I less diligently examined the question of that calling, which is accomplished according to God’s intention (Rev. Book 1, chapter 23, paragraphs 3, 4). 8. So you clearly see that I was then thinking about faith and works, although I had difficulty speaking about grace. And I see that these brothers of ours are of the same opinion as I was then, since they did not try to read my books or go forward with me in them. After all, if we had tried, we would have found that this question was resolved on the basis of the truth of the divine scriptures in the first of the two books that I wrote at the very beginning of my episcopacy to Simplician, bishop of the Church of Milan of blessed memory, successor of St. Ambrose. Although they may not know about these books; if so, let them know. This first of the two books I first mentioned in the second book of the Revisions in this way: Of those books which I wrote while a bishop, the first two were addressed to Simplicianus, primate of the Church of Milan, who succeeded the most blessed Ambrose. They talk about various questions, of which two, taken from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, I have collected in the first book. Of these questions, the first relates to the words: “What shall we say? Is it really sin from the law? No way,” right up to the place where the apostle says: “Who will deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 7:7-25). In this book, the words of the apostle: “The law is spiritual, but I am carnal” (Rom. 7:14) - and others, showing that the flesh is at war with the spirit, I presented in such a way as if the person in question was still under the law, and not under grace. Only much later did I realize that these words could also belong to a spiritual person (and more likely). The further study in this book continues from where the apostle says: “And not this alone; but so it was with Rebekah, when she conceived at the same time from Isaac,” right down to the words: “If the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and would have been like Gomorrah” (Rom. 9:10-29). In resolving this issue, difficulties arose related to human free will. But the grace of God prevailed, and it was impossible not to understand the most transparent truth spoken by the apostle: “For who makes you different? What do you have that you wouldn't get? If you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor. 4:7). And the martyr Cyprian, wanting to show this, expressed this thought in one title: “We should not boast in anything, since nothing is ours” (To Quirinus, book 3, chapter 4). That is why I said earlier that by this testimony of the Apostle I was also convicted when, as I said in a letter to Bishop Simplician, I thought about this matter differently than God revealed to me. So, the testimony of the apostle, who said to humble human pride: “What have you that you have not received?” , - does not allow any of the faithful to say: “I have faith, which I have not received,” for the arrogance of this answer is completely suppressed by the apostolic words. But one cannot say this: “Although I do not have perfect faith, I still have the beginning of it, by which I first believed in Christ.” For even to this it will be said: “What do you have that you did not receive? If you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor. 4:7). 9. Some people think that it is therefore impossible to say about faith: “What do you have that you did not receive?” ((1 Cor. 4:7)), - that it remains a faculty of that very nature that was formerly bestowed healthy and perfect, although now corrupted (In the letter of Hilary, n. 4, above, col. 955-956). But this passage cannot be understood in the sense in which they want, if we think about why the apostle said it. For he sought that no one should boast of man. After all, disagreements arose among the Corinthian Christians, so that one said, “I am Paul; the other one, I am Apollosov; third, I am Kifin." And so he had to say: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong things; God chose the base things of the world and the things that are despised, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh should boast before God.” Here the apostle speaks quite clearly against human pride, namely, so that no one should boast about a person, and thereby about himself. Finally, he says: “So that no flesh should boast before God,” and in order to show what a person should boast about, he immediately adds: “From him you also are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: so that, as it is written, he who boasts may boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:12, 27-31). From here he goes on to say what follows: “You are still carnal. For if there are disputes and strife among you, are you not carnal? And are you not acting like human beings? For when one says: I am Pavlov, and another: I am Apollos, are you not carnal? Who is Pavel? Who is Apollos? They are only ministers through whom you believed, and only as much as God has given to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God increased; Therefore, he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God who makes everything grow” (1 Cor. 3:3-7). Do you see that the apostle cares about nothing else except that man should be humbled and God alone exalted? After all, for those who are planted and irrigated, even the planter and the irrigator, according to him, do not mean anything, but only God, who grows. And the fact that this one planted and this one irrigated, he attributes not to themselves, but to God, saying: “As much as God has given to each. I planted, Apollos watered.” From here, having the same aspiration, the apostle came to the conclusion that he said: “Therefore, let no one boast about a man” (1 Cor. 3:21). For he has already said: “So that, as it is written, he who boasts may boast in the Lord.” After this and some other passages associated with him, the same aspiration of the apostle leads him to the words: “This, brothers, I applied to myself and Apollos for your sake, so that you would learn from us not to philosophize beyond what is written, and not to be proud of one another. For who makes you different? What do you have that you wouldn't get? If you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Cor. 4:6–7). 10. To interpret these most obvious words of the Apostle against human pride, that no one should boast in man, but only in the Lord, suspecting that the Apostle means the natural gifts of God - either the whole and perfect nature itself, which was given to man at his first creation, or some remnants of a corrupted nature - I consider this extremely absurd. For is it really true that the gifts that are common to people make some people different from others? He said here before: “For who distinguishes you?” ,” and then added: “What do you have that you wouldn’t get?” . A person exalting himself above another could say: I am distinguished by my faith, my righteousness, or something else. Anticipating such thoughts, the good teacher says: “What do you have that you would not receive?” . Who do you get this from? Is it not from the One who distinguished you from another without giving him what he gave you? “If you have received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” . Is it possible, I ask, that he wants anything other than that everyone who boasts should boast in the Lord? Nothing is more contrary to this meaning than for everyone to boast so much about his own merits, as if he had made them for himself, and not the grace of God - but that grace that distinguishes the good from the evil, and not that which is common to the good and the evil. So, there is a grace given to nature, according to which we are rational animals and differ from brutes; and there is also the grace given to nature, by which among people themselves the beautiful are distinguished from the ugly, and the talented from the stupid, and everything else related to this. But the one whom the apostle denounced did not exalt himself over cattle, nor over another person in any natural gifts, which even the worst may have. But the one who exalted himself attributed to himself, and not to God, something that related to the good life. For this reason, he deserved to hear from the apostle: “For who makes you different? What do you have that you wouldn’t get?” Nature has the ability to have faith, but does the very possession of this faith belong to her? “For not everyone has faith” (2 Thess. 3:2), although the opportunity to have faith belongs to everyone. The apostle does not say: “What can you have that you did not receive, so that you can have it?”, but says: “What do you have that you did not receive?” Therefore, the fact that a person can have faith, just as he can have love, belongs to his nature; to have faith, like to have love, belongs to the grace of the faithful. So, that nature, among whose gifts we were given the opportunity to have faith, does not distinguish one person from another; faith itself distinguishes the faithful from the unfaithful. And that is why it is said: “For who makes you different? What do you have that you wouldn’t get?” . And anyone who dares to say that he has faith from himself, because he has not received it, openly contradicts this obvious truth: not because to believe or not to believe does not belong to the free will of man, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord (Prov. 8, according to Sept.). Therefore also what is said applies to faith itself, which belongs to the will: “For who distinguishes you? What do you have that you wouldn’t get?” 11. Many hear the word of truth: but some believe, and others contradict: Therefore, these want to believe, and those do not. Who doesn't know about this? Who denies this? But since some have the will of the Lord prepared, and others do not, one should, of course, distinguish between what comes from His mercy and what from judgment. “What Israel sought,” says the apostle, “it did not achieve; the elect received it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written: God gave them a spirit of slumber, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear, even to this day. And David says: let their table be a snare, snares and a noose for their retribution; let their eyes be darkened so as not to see, and let their back be bent forever” (Rom. 11:7-10). This is mercy and judgment: mercy for the elect who have received the righteousness of God; judgment is for the rest who were blinded. And yet these too believed because they wanted to; and they did not believe, because they did not want to. So, mercy and judgment are carried out in the human will itself. Election means that which belongs to grace, and not, of course, that which comes from merit. For above the apostle said: “Even so at this time, according to the election of grace, there is a remnant preserved. But if by grace, then not by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:5-6). So, the elect received freely what they received: nothing preceded them that they would have given first, and they would have been rewarded: He saved them for nothing. For the rest, who were blinded, this was done as retribution, as was also said there. “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth” (Ps. 24:10); “His ways are unsearchable” (Rom. 11:33). So, the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He judges righteously, are unsearchable. 12. But perhaps they will tell me: the apostle distinguishes between works and faith, but says grace does not come from works; but does not say that it does not come from faith. And that's true. But Jesus also calls faith itself the work of God and commands us to build it. For the Jews said to Him: “What must we do to do the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (John 6:28–29). So, the apostle distinguishes between faith and works, just as in the two kingdoms of Judah Judah differs from Israel, although he himself is Israel. And a person is justified by faith, and not by works (Gal. 2:16) because it is given first, and based on it everything else is given - what in the proper sense is called works, by which a person lives righteously. For the apostle himself says: “By grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, but the gift of God,” that is, what I said “through faith” is not from you, but faith itself is also the Gift of God. “Not from works,” he says, “so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). After all, they usually say that because, they say, he deserved to believe, because he was a good man even before he believed. This can be said about Cornelius, whose alms were accepted and prayers heard before he believed in Christ (Acts 10:4). And yet he did not give alms and did not pray without any faith at all. For how could he call upon Him in whom he did not believe (Rom. 10:14)? But if he could have been saved without the faith of Christ, then the builder Apostle Peter would not have been sent to build it; although it is also true that “Unless the Lord builds a house, those who build it labor in vain” (Ps. 126:1). But they tell us: faith is from us, but the rest is from the Lord, pertaining to works of righteousness. As if faith, I say, does not relate to creation; as if the foundation does not belong to the structure! But if it does apply, and moreover in the first and greatest way, then the one who works in vain, preaching, building faith, if the Lord, by mercy, does not build it from the inside. So, everything good that Cornelius did before he believed in Christ, and when he believed, and after believing, he must give all this to God, so that no one can boast. 13. Therefore, the only Teacher and Lord Himself, having said: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him Whom He sent,” in the same speech a little later said: “But I told you that you both saw Me and did not believe. Everything that the Father gives Me will come to me." What does “he will come to me” mean if not “he will believe in Me”? But for this to happen, the Father gives. Also a little lower: “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets: and they will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to Me” (John 6:29, 36, 37, 43–45). What does it mean, “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to Me,” if not that “there is no one who has heard from the Father and learned and has not come to Me”? Because if everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes, then obviously everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father and has not learned. After all, if he had heard and learned, he would have come. Because there is no one who heard and learned and did not come; but everyone, says the Truth, who has heard from the Father and learned, comes. This school is far removed from the senses of the flesh, where they hear and learn from the Father in order to come to the Son. The Son Himself also dwells there, for He is His Word, which the Father teaches in this way. And he does this not through carnal hearing, but through the hearing of the heart. And there is also the Spirit of the Father and the Son; for He is not non-teaching or teaching apart from Them: for we affirm that the works of the Trinity are inseparable. And He, of course, is that Holy Spirit, about whom the Apostle says: “Having the same Spirit of faith” (2 Cor. 4:13). But this work is assigned to the Father to a greater extent because from Him the Son was born and from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit: which is too long to discuss in more detail; and I think that our work in fifteen books, dedicated to the Trinity, which is God, has already reached you. I say, this school, where they hear and learn from the Father, is greatly removed from the feelings of the flesh. We see many coming to the Son, for we see many believing in Christ; but where and how we heard and learned this from the Father, we do not see. This grace is extremely mysterious; that this is grace, who can doubt? So, this grace, bestowed secretly on human hearts by divine generosity, is not rejected by any hard heart. For this is why it is given, so that the hardness of the heart can be removed first. So, when the Father hears from within and teaches us to come to the Son, He takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as He promised through the preaching of the prophet (Ezek. 11:19). Thus He creates the sons of promise and vessels of mercy, whom He previously prepared for glory. 14. So why does He not teach everyone to come to the Son? Is it not just because he teaches everyone he teaches out of mercy, and everyone he doesn’t teach, he doesn’t teach him through justice? For “he has mercy on whomever he wants, and he hardens whomever he wants”; but he is merciful in that he bestows good; he hardens by giving what is due. But perhaps these words, as some think, belong to the one to whom the apostle is addressing, saying: “You will tell me...”, so that “So, he has mercy on whomever he wants, and he hardens whomever he wants” were said by the same person, as well as what was said further, namely: “For what else does he accuse? For who can resist his will? Is the apostle's answer really this: O man, is what you have said false? No! Here is his answer: “Who are you, man, that you argue with God? Will the product say to the person who made it: “Why did you make me this way?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, so that from the same mixture,” and then everything that you know very well. And yet, in a sense, the Father teaches everyone to come to His Son. For it was not in vain that the prophets wrote: “And they will all be taught by God.” Jesus, having presented this testimony, added: “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to Me.” Therefore, just as we correctly say about some grammar teacher, who is the only one in the city, that he teaches everyone to read and write - not because everyone learns, but because all those who learn to read and write learn only from him - it also means that we correctly say that God teaches everyone to come to Christ - not because everyone comes, but because no one comes otherwise. And why He does not teach everyone, the apostle revealed, as far as he considered it necessary: ​​because he wanted “to show his wrath and demonstrate his power, with great long-suffering he spared the vessels of wrath, which were ready for destruction, so that together he might show the riches of his glory over the vessels of mercy, which he had prepared for glory” (Rom. 9:18-23). From here it comes that “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). God teaches all such to come to Christ, because He wants them all to “be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). For if I wanted to teach those for whom the word about the cross is foolishness, so that they would come to Christ, then without a doubt they would come too. Because he who says: “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to Me” does not deceive and is not deceived. Let it not happen, then, that anyone who has heard from the Father and learned it should not come. 15. Why, they ask, doesn’t everyone teach? If we say that those whom He does not teach do not want to learn, they will answer us: where is what was said to Him: “God, you will convert us and revive us” (Ps. 84:7)? If God does not create the willful from the unwilling, why does the Church pray according to the commandment of the Lord for her persecutors (Matthew 5:44)? For Saint Cyprian so wanted to understand even these words: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10) - that is, both among those who have already believed, who are like heaven, and among the unbelievers, who because of this are still earth. So, why do we pray for those who do not want to believe, except because God produces the very desire in them (Phil. 2:13)? The apostle specifically prays for the Jews: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is for salvation” (Rom. 10:1). So why does he pray for unbelievers, if not so that they will believe? For otherwise they do not receive salvation. So, if the faith of those who pray precedes the grace of God, then does the faith of those for whom they pray so that they believe also precede God’s grace? After all, this is precisely why they pray for them, so that they, the non-believers, that is, those without faith, will be granted faith. This means that when the Gospel is proclaimed, some believe and some do not; but believers, together with the voice of the preacher, which comes from without, hear the Father from within and learn; The unbelievers hear from without, but do not hear from within and do not learn. For “no one,” says Jesus, “comes to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” This is stated more clearly later. After some time, when Jesus spoke about eating His flesh and drinking His blood, even some of His disciples said: “What strange words! Who can listen to this?” But Jesus, knowing within Himself that His disciples were grumbling about this, said to them: “Does this offend you?” And a little later: “The words that I speak to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who are unbelievers." And then the Evangelist adds: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those who did not believe were and who would betray Him. And he said: For this reason I told you, that no one can come to Me unless it is given to him from My Father” (John 6:44-66). So, to be drawn by the Father to the Son, and to hear and learn from the Father in order to come to the Son, is nothing other than to receive from the Father a gift through which a person would believe in the Son. Because He who said: “No one can come to Me unless it is given to him from My Father” made a distinction not between those who hear and those who do not hear the Gospel, but between believers and non-believers. 16. So, faith - both beginning and complete - is the gift of God; and let no one doubt that this gift is given to some and not to others, who does not want to oppose the clearest passages of Holy Scripture. Why it is not given to everyone, this should not worry the faithful, who believes that from one person everyone went into condemnation, undoubtedly the most just: so that there would be no reproach to God, even if no one were delivered from there. Whence it is evident that there is great grace in this, that many are delivered and learn what is due to them by observing those who are not delivered: so that the one who boasts does not boast in his own merits, which are equal to the merits of those condemned, but only in the Lord. Why does He deliver this one rather than that one? “His judgments are incomprehensible and His ways unsearchable” (Rom. 11:33). For it is better for us here to hear or say: “Who are you, man, that you argue with God?” (Rom. 9:20) - rather than dare to speak as if we know what remains hidden at the will of God. But He could not want anything unrighteous. 17. Now about what, as you remember, I said in some essay against Porfiry, entitled “On the Time of the Christian Religion.” I said this on purpose in order to avoid a more careful and laborious discussion about grace - in particular, because I did not want to say about it there what could be said in another place or by other people. For, among other things, answering the question of why Christ came after such a long time, I said: “Therefore, why is Christ not reproached that not everyone follows His teaching” (for they themselves feel that this cannot justly be reproached by the wisdom of philosophers or even by the command of their gods). What will they answer if, not to mention the height of the wisdom and knowledge of God, where, perhaps, some other more secret plan is hidden, without prejudice also to other reasons that can be investigated by the wise, only for the sake of brevity we say in the discussion of this question that Christ wished to appear to people and preach His teaching among them there and then, where and when, as He knew, those who would believe in Him would live? For regarding those times and places in which His gospel was not preached, He foreknew that all there would be such as, although not all, but many were during His bodily presence: for they did not want to believe in Him, even when He raised the dead. We still see many as such now: when the prophetic testimonies about Him are so clearly fulfilled, they still do not want to believe and are more willing to resist with human obstinacy than to yield to the divine authority, which is as clear and transparent, sublime and glorified as the human mind is small and weak to penetrate into the divine truth. So, what is surprising if Christ knew that the world in previous centuries was so filled with infidels that he deservedly did not want to appear to them and preach, for he knew in advance that neither through words nor through miracles would they believe? There is nothing incredible in the fact that everyone was like that then, since we are amazed at their multitude from His coming to the present time. And yet, from the beginning of the human race, from Adam to Moses, here more secretly, there more clearly, as from the divine point of view it was better suited to the time, they did not stop prophesying about him, and those who believed in him were not translated - both in the Israeli people themselves, which in some mysterious way were a prophetic people, and in other nations before His coming in the flesh. For if since the time of Abraham some of them have been mentioned in the Holy Hebrew Books, who were neither from the generation of his flesh, nor from the people of Israel, nor from strangers who entered into community with the people of Israel, but who, however, were participants in this sacrament, then why should we not believe that also in other nations - here and there, in different places - there were different kinds of believing people, although they are not mentioned in the same books? Thus the salvation of this only true religion, which is unfalsely promised through it, has never been taken away from anyone who is worthy; but from whom it was taken, he was not worthy. And from the beginning of the multiplication of mankind until the end, it is preached to some as a reward, and to others as a judgment. Therefore, those to whom it was not announced at all were foreknown as unbelievers. Those future unbelievers to whom it was preached served as examples of the first unbelievers; and those future believers to whom it was proclaimed were preparing for the Heavenly Kingdom and the community of holy angels” (Message 102, paragraphs 14, 15). 18. Do you not see that, without prejudice against God’s hidden plan and other reasons, I wanted to say about the foreknowledge of Christ what seems sufficient to expose the infidelity of the pagans who raise this question? But whether they should have had faith from themselves after Christ was preached to them, or should they have received it by the gift of God - that is, whether God only foreknew them, or also predestined them - I did not then consider it necessary to investigate and discuss this. Therefore, what I said: “There and then Christ wanted to appear to people and among them to preach His teaching, where and when, as He knew, those who would believe in Him would live,” can be paraphrased as follows: “There and then Christ wanted to appear to people and among them to preach His teaching, where and when, as He knew, those who were chosen in Him “before the creation of the world” would live (Eph. 1, 4). But if I were to say so, it would direct the reader to an investigation of those questions that now need to be discussed more fully and carefully in order to refute the errors of Pelagius. It seemed to me, therefore, that it was then sufficient to speak of it briefly, without, as has already been observed, the height of God's wisdom and knowledge, and without prejudice to other reasons, which I thought better to speak of at another time. 19. So I have said that the salvation of this only true religion, which is unfalsely promised through it, has never been taken away from anyone who is worthy; and the one from whom it was taken was not worthy. If you look for the reasons why one or another turns out to be worthy, then those who claim that such a reason is the human will will not fail. We say that this is done by grace or predestination of God. After all, the only difference between grace and predestination is that predestination prepares grace, and grace is already the gift itself. So, when the apostle says: “Not from works, lest anyone should boast: for we are His workmanship, created in Jesus Christ for good works” - this is grace; and what follows: “Which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:9–10), is predestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge can exist without predestination. After all, God, by predestination, foreknows what He Himself is going to do. Therefore it is said: “He who created the future” (Is. 45, according to Sept.). However, He can also foreknow what He Himself does not do, such as, for example, any sins. For if there are some sins that are at the same time a punishment for sin, as it is said: “God gave them over to a depraved mind to do what is indecent” (Rom. 1:28), then here it is not sin that belongs to God, but judgment. Therefore, the predestination of God, relating to good, is, as I said, the preparation of grace: grace is a consequence of predestination itself. Consequently, when God promised Abraham in his seed the faith of the pagans: “He has made you a father of many nations,” because of which the apostle says: “Therefore by faith, so that by mercy the promise to all the seed might be sure” (Gen. 17:4,5) - then He promised this not because of our will, but because of His predestination. For he promised what He Himself was going to do, and not what people were going to do. After all, even if people do good related to honoring God, they do not do it so that He fulfills what he promises, but He Himself does so that they do what is commanded. Otherwise, it would not be in God’s power, but in the power of people, to fulfill what God promised, and from them Abraham would be given what was promised from the Lord. However, this is not how Abraham believed, but he believed, “giving glory to God that He is able to do what He promised” (Rom. 4:16-21). He does not say: predict; does not say: to foreknow - for He can also predict and foreknow the deeds of others - but said: “mighty and to execute” - that means not other people’s deeds, but His own. 20. But maybe God promised the good deeds of the pagans to Abraham in his seed in such a way that He Himself fulfilled what was promised, and regarding the faith that people create for themselves, He foreknew that people would create it, and therefore He promised it from Himself? This is not how the apostle speaks about it. After all, God promised Abraham sons who would follow in the footsteps of his faith; but since there are no good works except from faith (“The righteous shall live by faith” (Habak. 2:4); and “Whatever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23); and “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6)), still the fulfillment of what God has promised remains in the power of people. For if a person without the gift of God does not do what is required of him, then God Himself will not do what He is about to bestow. In other words, if a person does not have faith from himself, then God will not fulfill his promise to give works of righteousness. And therefore it does not depend on God whether He can fulfill His promise, but on people. If truth and piety forbid us to believe this, let us believe with Abraham that He is able to fulfill His promise. He promised sons to Abraham, who would not have existed without faith: this means that He Himself gives faith. 21. And when the apostle says: “Therefore by faith, so that by grace the promise may be certain,” I am surprised at people who prefer to rely on their own weakness rather than on the certainty of God’s promise. “But it is unclear to me,” someone will say, “God’s will for me.” So what? Is your own will about yourself clear to you, and aren’t you afraid of the warning: “If anyone thinks he stands, beware lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12)? So, since both are not determined, why does not a person entrust his faith, hope and love to a stronger will rather than to a weaker one? 22. “But when it is said,” they will answer us, “that “if you believe, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9), then one of these things is required, the other is offered. And what is required is in the power of man, and what is offered is in the power of God” (above, in the letter of Hilary, paragraph 2, col. 947–948). Why is not everything under the power of God: both what He commands and what He offers? For they ask Him to give what He commands: believers ask that their faith may increase in them; they ask for unbelievers that faith may be granted to them. So, both in its beginning and in its growth, faith is a gift of God. It is said: “If you believe, you will be saved,” in the same sense as the other: “If you put to death the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit, you will live.” For here, too, one of two is required, and the other is proposed: “If by the Spirit,” he says, “you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.” So, it is required that the deeds of the flesh should be put to death by the Spirit, but it is proposed that we should live. Really, however, do we really want to say that mortification of the deeds of the flesh is not a gift from God - and only because we hear that for doing this we are offered the reward of life? Let it not be that this pleases the partakers and defenders of grace. This is a condemnable error of the Pelagians, whose mouth the Apostle immediately shuts, adding: “As many as are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rom. 8:13-14), so that we would not think that the deeds of the flesh are mortified not by the Spirit of God, but by our spirit. He also speaks about this Spirit of God in another place: “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases” (1 Cor. 12:11). Between all this, as you know, he also named faith. So, just as the mortification of the deeds of the flesh is a gift of God and at the same time it is required of us with the offer of the reward of eternal life, so faith is a gift of God and at the same time a demand addressed to us when it is said: “If you believe, you will be saved,” and the reward of faith is salvation. For this is why this is commanded to us and at the same time shown as a gift of God, so that we understand: we ourselves do it, and God makes it so that we do it. He Himself spoke about this in the clearest way through the prophet Ezekiel. For what is clearer than the words: “I will cause you to walk in My commandments” (Ezek. 36:27)? Listen to this scripture and you will see what God promised to do so that they would do exactly what He Himself commands. Obviously, He is not silent here about their merits, but about their evil deeds. And He shows that He repays them good for evil, precisely by giving them from now on to have good deeds. For He Himself makes sure that they keep His commandments. 23. All this evidence serves to substantiate the fact that the grace of God, given through Jesus Christ, is truly grace, that is, it is not given according to our merits, although it is most obviously confirmed by divine testimony. However, there are people who recognize something as theirs only when they first give and then accept something as retribution. It is they who experience some difficulties, because otherwise they consider themselves completely cut off from zeal for piety. These difficulties arise primarily in relation to adults who already use the judgment of the will. But when it comes to children and about “the Mediator between God and people – the man Jesus Christ” Himself (1 Tim. 2:5), all assertions about human merits preceding grace are eliminated. For neither of them differs from other people by any good previous merits, by virtue of which they would belong to the Deliverer; nor He Himself, for He Himself is a man, having become the Savior of people. 24. For who will listen to what they say about infants, that they were baptized in infancy according to their future merits and immediately passed away from life? And that others die unbaptized at the same age because their future deeds were also foreknown, but the deeds are evil? After all, then, it means that God rewards or condemns not for a good or bad life, but for nothing at all (above in the Letter of Prosper, n. 5, col. 951-952). So the apostle set a limit that should not be crossed - how can I put it mildly? - careless human curiosity. For he says: “We will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive according to what he did while living in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). He said: “did”; and did not add after that: “Or what he was going to do.” I don’t know where it came into the heads of such men that babies are punished or rewarded for future merits that are not future. Why then is it said that a person will be judged according to what he did while living in the body? After all, much is done in the soul alone, without the participation of the body or any bodily organ; and in most cases, so much is done that such thoughts are given the most just punishment - such as, for example, what “the fool said in his heart: there is no God” (Ps. 13:1). So, in what sense is it said: “He did it in the body,” if not in the sense that “he did it while he was in the body”? And by body we mean the time of bodily life? After all, after this time no one will be in the body, except at the last resurrection, and even then not to prepare any merits, but to receive rewards for good deeds and punishment for evil ones. And in the interval between taking off the body and putting it on, souls either suffer or rest, depending on what they did during bodily life. What also belongs to this time is what the Pelagians deny, but the Church of Christ confesses, namely, original sin. So when children die, depending on whether the sin is resolved by God's grace or not resolved by God's judgment, either by the merit of regeneration they pass from evil to good, or by the merit of origin they pass from evil to evil. The Catholic faith knows this; Even some heretics agree with this without objection. As for the fact that someone is judged not on the merits that he received when he was in the body, but on the merits that he would have received if he lived longer in the body, I cannot understand: how could people think such a thing, whose talent should not be despised, as your letters testify to? So I am amazed and amazed, and I would not have dared to believe this if I had not otherwise dared not to believe you. But I hope that with God’s help, after admonition, they will quickly understand: if so-called future sins can be punished by God’s judgment in the unbaptized, then by God’s grace they can also be forgiven by the baptized. For anyone who says that future sins can only be punished by God's judgment, and cannot be forgiven by His mercy, must reflect on what injustice he is committing in relation to God and His grace. It’s as if He can foreknow future sin, but cannot forgive! But since this is absurd, future sinners who die in infancy, as they would have become if they had lived long, should all the more be helped by the washing away of their sins. 25. To this it may be said that sins are forgiven to those who repent; and those dead children were not baptized in infancy, because it was foretold about them that if they had lived longer, they would still not have repented. About those children who left the body baptized, God foreknew that they would have repented if they had survived. Let those who say this take heed and see that in this case, infants who die without baptism are no longer rewarded for original sin, but for their own future sins, which they would have committed if they had lived longer. Likewise, those who were baptized would then be forgiven their future sins, and not their original sins, since they cannot sin before reaching adulthood. But since some were foreknown as repentant, while others were not, then, they say, some left this life having received baptism, and others without baptism. If the Pelagians had heard this, then, denying original sin, they would no longer have found it difficult to find babies outside the Kingdom of God, I don’t know what kind of place of bliss it is. And they would do this most easily when they say that infants cannot have eternal life, since they did not eat flesh and did not drink the blood of Christ (John 6:54): after all, for those who have absolutely no sin, baptism for the remission of sins is false. They would answer this that there is no original sin, but dying babies are baptized or not baptized for their future merits; and for these future merits they either accept or do not accept the body and blood of Christ, without which, obviously, they cannot have life; and that they are baptized into the true remission of sins, although they did not inherit anything from Adam, because they are forgiven of sins about which God foreknew that they would repent. And thus the Pelagians would very simply carry out and carry out their work, denying that there is original sin, and assuring that the grace of God is given only for our merits. But since the future deeds of people, which in fact will not take place, are undoubtedly not merits (and it is very easy to see this), the Pelagians could not teach this; and even more so, those who are now being discussed should not have spoken like that. For it is impossible to say how painful it is for me: after all, what the Pelagians saw as false and most absurd, the people who, together with us as Catholics, condemn the error of these heretics, did not see. 26. Cyprian wrote a book on Mortality, which is commendably known to many or almost all who love church works. In it he says that death for the faithful is not only harmless, but even useful, because it removes a person from the danger of sin and gives him the peace of sinlessness. But what is the use if also future sins that have not been committed are subject to punishment? However, Cyprian carefully and in the best way proves that the danger of sinning is not absent in this life and is not present in the next. In support, he cites evidence from the Book of Wisdom: “He was caught up, so that malice would not change his mind.” This passage, which I also cited, these brothers, according to you, rejected as taken from a non-canonical book: as if even without the testimony of this book the subject that we wanted to clarify is not clear. For what Christian would dare to deny that the righteous, overtaken by death, will be in rest (Wis. 4, 11, 7)? What person of sound faith would consider it necessary to contradict this statement? Or that if a righteous man departs from the righteousness in which he lived, and dies in unrighteousness, in which he lived not only a year, but only a day, then he will accept the punishment due to the unrighteous, so that his past righteousness will not help him in any way (Ezek. 18:24)? Who among the faithful will object to this transparent truth? Further, if we are asked whether a righteous man would have received punishment or peace if he had died while he was still righteous, then shall we really hesitate to answer that peace? This is the whole reason why it is said, no matter who said it: “He was caught up, so that malice would not change his mind.” For this is said in relation to the dangers of this life, and not in relation to the foreknowledge of God, who foreknew the future, and not what will not happen. Namely, He foreknew that He would grant the righteous a premature death, so that he would be removed from the uncertainty of temptations; and not that he would have sinned if he could not be tempted because he was caught out of life. We read about this life in Job: “Is not the life of man on earth a temptation?” (Job 7, 1, according to Sept.). But why is it granted to some that they be taken away from the dangers of this life while they are still righteous, while other righteous people are kept among the same dangers until they fall away from righteousness - so after all, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” (Rom. 11:34). And yet, from this it is made clear that even those righteous people who retain good and pious morals until old age and the last day of this life should boast not of their own merits, but of the Lord: for He who, through the brevity of life, snatched away the righteous man, so that malice did not change his mind, He Himself preserves the righteous man throughout an arbitrarily long life so that malice does not change his mind. And why He keeps in life that righteous man whom He could have carried away before he fell—then truly righteous, yet His judgments are unsearchable. 27. Since this is so, we should not reject the judgments of the Book of Wisdom, which in the Church of Christ has deserved for so many years to be pronounced from the pulpit by its readers and listened to with respect for divine authority by all Christians, from bishops to the very last faithful laity, penitents and catechumens. Let us assume that I would derive from the interpretations of the Divine Scriptures that came before us a defense of this opinion, which we are now forced to more carefully and diligently defend against the new error of the Pelagians - namely, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, and to whom it is given, it is given freely, for “not from him who wills, not from him who runs, but from a merciful God”; but to whom it is not given, according to righteous judgment it is not given, for with God there is no injustice (Rom. 9:16, 14). So, if I had derived the defense of this opinion from the divine sayings of the Catholic interpreters who preceded us, then, obviously, these brothers, about whom you now care, would calm down, as you made clear in your letter. Why is it so important that we examine the works of those who, before this heresy arose, had no need to deal with the resolution of this complex issue? But they would undoubtedly do this if they were forced to answer. Therefore, it happened that they briefly touched upon the question of God's grace in some places in their writings. They paid special attention to what they defended against the enemies of the Church, and to calls for certain virtues with which they serve the living and true God for the sake of achieving eternal life and true bliss. The frequency of prayers clearly shows what the grace of God could produce: for they would not ask God for what He commands to happen if it were not given from Him for it to happen. 28. But those who wish to be taught by the opinions of interpreters should prefer this book of Wisdom to all interpretations, where it is said: “He was caught up, lest evil change his mind.” For she was preferred even by the interpreters closest in time to the apostles, who, bringing her as witnesses, thought that they were bringing precisely divine testimony. And it is firmly established that the most blessed Cyprian, preaching about the benefit of quick death, believed that those who end this life, during which they can sin, are delivered from the danger of sin. In the same book he says, among other things: “Why don’t you accept that you will be with Christ, and are not confident in the promise of the Lord that you are called to Christ, and why don’t you give thanks that you have been delivered from the devil?” And in another place: “Infants escape the danger of an age prone to sin.” Also in another place: “Why don’t we hurry and run so that we can see our fatherland and greet our parents? There is a great gathering of dear parents, brothers, sons waiting for us there; a dense and numerous crowd desires us, already confident in its safety, and still worried about our salvation.” With these and other words, this teacher, in the clearest light of the Catholic faith, openly and sufficiently testifies that until leaving the body one should be afraid of the danger of sin and temptations; after that no one experiences anything like it. But even if he had not said so, what Christian would doubt it? So, for a fallen person who ended his life in this fall and is going to the punishment due to such, it would bring the greatest benefit to this person if he were snatched away by death from this place of temptation before he fell. 29. Therefore, if there is no extremely thoughtless controversy, then the whole question of who was “caught up so that malice did not change his mind” has been exhausted. And therefore, the book of Wisdom, which has deserved to be read for so many years in the Church of Christ, where this very place is read, should not suffer injustice due to the fact that it is opposed to those who are mistaken about human merits and who go against the most obvious grace of God. This grace appears to the greatest extent in infants. Since some of them reach the limit of this life baptized, others unbaptized, they thereby speak sufficiently about mercy and judgment - moreover, undeserved mercy, but deserved judgment. For if people were judged not by the merits of their lives that they had before death, but by those that they would have had if they had lived longer, then there would be no benefit to the one who was raptured, so that malice would not change his mind; and it would be of no benefit to those who die after the fall to die earlier. But no Christian dares to say this. Therefore, our brothers, who are fighting with us for the Catholic faith against the destruction of Pelagian error, should not so indulge this Pelagian opinion, according to which they believe that the grace of God is given according to our merits. After all, this would destroy the true and ancient Christian statement: “He was caught up, so that malice would not change his mind,” which the Pelagians themselves could not allow. And at the same time they invent things that, as we believe, not only cannot come to mind, but cannot even be dreamed of. Namely, that everyone who dies is judged on the basis of what he would have done if he had lived longer. For the irrefutability of what we have said is so obvious that the grace of God is not given according to our merits, that inventive people who contradict this cannot say anything other than what must be rejected from the hearing and thoughts of all Christians. 30. The Savior Himself, the mediator between God and people, the man Jesus Christ, is also the clearest light of predestination and grace. For by what previous merits of works or faith did His human nature deserve this? Let them answer: where did this man deserve to be the Son of God, having been accepted as the Word co-eternal with the Father into the unity of person? What good deed preceded this? What did He do before? What did you believe? What did you ask to achieve such an indescribable advantage? Really, having been created and received by the Word, did not man himself, from the very moment he began to exist, begin to be the only begotten Son of God? Was it not the only begotten Son of God that that woman full of grace conceived? Was it really not from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary that the only begotten Son of God was born - not by the desire of the flesh, but by a separate gift of God? Was it really necessary to fear that, having reached adulthood, this person would sin by free will? Or was the will in Him unfree, and the more unfree, the stronger the inability for Him to serve sin? On the contrary, all this, worthy of special admiration, like everything else that can only be called His own, was perceived in a special way in Him by human - that is, our - nature without any previous merits. Let a man argue with God here and say, if he dares: Why not me too? And if he hears: “Who are you, man, that you argue with God?” (Rom. 9:20) - then he will not restrain his shamelessness, but, on the contrary, will increase it and say: What do I hear? “Who are you, man?” . After all, He is the same as I am, that is, a man! Why then am I not like Him? And if by grace He is such, then why is there a difference of grace where the nature is the same? After all, “with God there is no partiality” (Col. 3:25)! What kind of person - I won’t say a Christian, but rather a crazy person - would say this? 31. So, in our Head the source of grace is revealed to us, from where it is transmitted to all members of the body according to the measure of each. And every Christian from the beginning of his faith is such by the same grace by which that person from the beginning of his life became Christ; and this one was born again from the same Spirit from whom He was born; and by the same Spirit there is remission of sins in us, by whom it was done so that He should not have any sin. God obviously foreknew that he would do this. So, this is the very predestination of the saints, which was manifested to the greatest extent in the Holy One of all saints. And who among those who correctly understand the sayings of truth can deny this? For we learn that the Lord of glory Himself, the man who became the Son of God, is predestined. At the beginning of one of his epistles, the teacher of nations exclaims: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, chosen for the gospel of God, which God first promised through his prophets in the holy scriptures concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, predestined to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, through the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:1-4). Therefore, Jesus was predestined, so that he who was in the flesh the son of David should also be the Son of God in power through the Holy Spirit, since he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For ineffably and uniquely, God the Word took on man in such a way that He is called, in a true and proper way, both the Son of God and the Son of Man: the Son of Man - as a man taken by God; and the Son of God - as the only begotten God who perceives man. And this is so that we believe not in the quaternity, but in the Trinity. This great and incomparable ascension of human nature was so predestined that it would be impossible to ascend higher. Likewise, the deity could not, for our sake, stoop lower than when it, having assumed human nature with the infirmities of the flesh, went to death on the cross. And just as He was predestined to be our Head, so many of us were predestined to be members of His body. Here let the human merits, destroyed in Adam, be silent, and let the reigning grace of God reign through Jesus Christ, our Lord, the only begotten Son of God, the only Lord. And everyone who has found in our Head the merits that precede His unique birth, let him also seek in us, the members of His body, the merits that precede our rebirth. For this birth was not given to Christ, but was given so that one free from all sin would be born of the Spirit and the Virgin. Likewise, for us to be born of water and the Spirit, it is not rewarded for some merit, but is given freely. And if faith leads us to the bathhouse of rebirth, we should not think because of this that we first gave something in order to receive a saving rebirth as a reward. For it is He who created in us faith in Christ, who created Christ for us, in whom we believe; The same one creates in people the beginning and perfection of faith in Jesus, Who created Jesus Himself “the author and perfecter of faith” - for this is exactly what He is called, as you know, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 12:2). 32. For when God calls His many predestinated sons to make them members of His predestinated only begotten Son, He does not call them by the same calling by which those who did not wish to come to the wedding are called (Luke 14:16-20). By this calling both the Jews, for whom Christ crucified is a temptation, and the pagans, for whom He is foolishness, are called. No, He calls them by the calling that the Apostle singles out, saying that for the very called Jews and Gentiles he preaches Christ, God's power and God's wisdom. For this reason he says: “To those who are called themselves” (1 Cor. 1:24) - in order to show others as uncalled. For he knows that there is a certain calling of those who are called according to the purpose of God - those whom He first foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29). Bearing in mind this calling, the apostle says: “It was not told to her by works, but by him who called, that the older will serve the younger” (Rom. 9:12). Did he say: “Not from works, but from him who believes”? It is obvious that he takes this away from a person in order to give everything to God. So, he said: “But from the one who calls,” - not by any calling, but by such a calling as makes them believers. 33. The apostle had this same calling in mind when he said: “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” And notice exactly what he says here. It is said: “I do not want to leave you, brothers, ignorant of this mystery, so that you do not dream about yourself, that the hardening has happened in Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in; and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written, the Deliverer will come from Zion, and will turn away wickedness from Jacob. And this is my covenant to them, when I take away their sins from them.” And immediately the apostle adds something that should be carefully understood: “In relation to the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake; and in relation to election, beloved of God for the sake of the fathers” (Rom. 11:25-29). What does it mean: “In relation to the Gospel they are enemies for your sake”? Is it not that their hostility, because of which they killed Christ, undoubtedly, as we see, benefited the Gospel? And he showed this to those who came from the institution of God, who knows how to use even evil for good: not so that the vessels of wrath were useful to Him, but so that they themselves, well used by Him, would benefit the vessels of mercy. For what can be said more clearly than this: “In relation to the Gospel they are enemies for your sake”? So, to sin is in the power of the evil: the same thing, so that, sinning out of their malice, they do this or that, this is not in their power, but in the power of God, who divides darkness and puts it in order. So even if they do something against the will of God, nothing is done except the will of God. In the Acts of the Apostles we read: when the apostles, released by the Jews, came to their own and told them what the priests and elders had said to them, they unanimously raised their voices to the Lord and said: “Sovereign God, who created heaven and earth and the sea and everything that is in them! Thou, through the mouth of our father David, Thy servant, said by the Holy Spirit: Why are the heathen troubled, and the nations plotting vain things? The kings of the earth rose up, and the princes gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ. For truly Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together in this city against Your Holy Son Jesus, whom You anointed, to do what Your hand and Your counsel had predetermined to happen” (Acts 4:24-28). That is why it is said: “In relation to the Gospel, enemies are for your sake.” For the hand of God and His counsel predetermined that as much should be done by the enemies of the Jews as was necessary for the Gospel for our sake. But why is this followed by: “In regard to election, the beloved of God for the sake of the fathers”? Are those enemies from this people who perished in their enmity, opposing Christ, still perishing? And they are the beloved of God? Let it not be: for who, even the most stupid, would say this? But both, although opposite to each other - that is, enemies and lovers - are found, albeit not in the same people, but in the same Jewish people, among those who belong to the same seed of Israel. So some refer to the curse, and others to the blessing of Israel itself. The apostle expressed this meaning more clearly above when he said: “What Israel sought, it did not achieve: but election achieved, but the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). In both cases, the same Israel is spoken of. Therefore, when we hear: “Israel has not achieved,” or “others have become hardened,” here we should mean “enemies for your sake”; when we hear: “The election has come,” what is meant here is “the beloved of God for the sake of the fathers.” For these promises were made to the fathers: “The promises were given to Abraham and to his seed” (Gal. 3:16). Therefore, a branch of the wild olive tree of the Gentiles was grafted onto the olive tree of the Jews. Next, the apostle must move on to election, which is given by grace, and not by debt, since “the remnant is preserved by the election of grace” (Rom. 11:17:5). This election was realized when others became hardened. Through this election the Israelites are beloved of God for the sake of their fathers. For they are not called by the calling about which it is said: “Many are called” (Matthew 20:16), but by that by which the elect are called. Therefore, after the apostle said: “In regard to election, the beloved of God for the sake of the fathers,” he immediately added what we are talking about: “For the gifts and calling of God are immutable,” that is, without change and firmly established. All who belong to this calling are taught of God. And none of them can say: I believed in order to be called thus, for the mercy of God preceded him: by this I was called because I believed. Because everyone who is taught by God comes to Christ - insofar as they have heard and learned from the Father through the Son, who clearly said: “Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned comes to me.” Of these, none perishes, since of all that the Father has given Him, He will not destroy anything (John 6:45, 39). So, whoever comes from there certainly does not perish; and the one who died was not from there. As a result, it is said: “They came out from us, but they were not ours; for if they were ours, they would remain with us” (1 John 2:19). 34. Let us therefore understand the calling by which the elect become: not those who are chosen because they believe, but those who are chosen in order to believe. For the Lord sufficiently reveals this calling when he says: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). After all, if they were chosen because they believed, then they themselves would have chosen first, believing in Him, in order to deserve to be chosen. All this is completely taken away by the One who said: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.” After all, they themselves, without a doubt, chose Him when they believed in Him. Therefore, for no other reason did He say: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you,” except because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they should choose Him. For His mercy preceded them (Ps. 59:11) by grace, and not by duty. So, He chose them out of the world when He lived here in the flesh - but those who were already chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. This is the unshakable truth of predestination and grace. For why does the apostle say: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4)? Perhaps this is said because God foreknew their faith, and not because he was going to make them believers? But the Son opposes this foreknowledge when he says: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.” In this case, God rather foreknew that they would choose Him in order to deserve to be chosen by Him. So they were chosen before the creation of the world by the predestination by which God foreknew His future works; they were chosen from the world by the calling by which God fulfilled what he had predetermined. For those whom he predestined, he also called, and by that very calling that is in accordance with his intention. So, not others, but “those whom He predestined, and they themselves also called”; not others, but those “whom he so called, he also justified”; not others, but those whom he predestined, called and “justified, and he also glorified them” (Rom. 8:30) for a purpose that in turn has no purpose. So, God chose the faithful - but in such a way that they became faithful, and not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: “Has God not chosen the poor of the world? to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom, which He promised to those who love Him” (James 2:5)? So, by choosing, He creates people rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom. It is rightly said that He chose in them what He Himself created, for which He chose them. I ask: who, hearing the words of the Lord: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you,” dares to say that people believe in order to be chosen? After all, they are chosen rather to believe, so that, contrary to the truth, those to whom Christ says: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” would not be found to have chosen Christ first! 35. Who, hearing the words of the apostle: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, since He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having predestined us as sons to Himself through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace by which He He has prospered us in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, which He has abundantly bestowed upon us in all wisdom and understanding, having revealed to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He first decreed in Him, in the dispensation of the fulness of times, that all things in heaven and on earth might be united under the head of Christ. In Him we became heirs, having been predestined to this by the determination of Him who works all things according to the purpose of His will, so that we might serve to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:3-12) - who, I say, listening to this attentively and with understanding, will dare to doubt the truth that we defend? God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world the members of His body. But how could he choose those who did not yet exist, except by predestination? So He chose us by predestination. And has he really chosen the wicked and unclean? Because if it is asked whether he chose those about whom we spoke above, or rather the saints and blameless, then no one will hesitate to answer and will immediately vote for the saints and blameless. 36. “Consequently, He foreknew,” says the Pelagian, “who would be holy and blameless according to their free will, and therefore chose them before the foundation of the world according to His foreknowledge, by which He foreknew that they would be such. So He chose them before they were, predestining them to be sons whom He foreknew would be holy and blameless; and of course, He Himself did not do this and did not intend to do so, but He foreknew that they would be like this.” Let us therefore consider 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 that we might be so. “Blessed,” says the apostle, “is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, since He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless.” Therefore, not because we were going to be, but in order to be. How definite and how clear this is: because we will be exactly like this, because He Himself chose us, predestining us to be like this by His grace. And thus “He has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, since He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having predestined us as sons as sons through Jesus Christ.” Then, notice that the apostle adds: “according to the good pleasure of His will,” so that in such a good deed of grace we would not boast of our will, “with which He has favored us in the Beloved,” that is, He has favored us with His will. For the word “blessed” comes from the word “grace,” just as “justify” comes from “righteousness.” “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, which He abundantly bestowed upon us in all wisdom and understanding, having revealed to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure.” In this mystery of His will He laid down the riches of His grace, according to the good will of His will, and not ours, which could not have been good if He Himself, by His good pleasure, had not helped it to become so. Having said: “According to His good pleasure,” he added: “Which He first placed in Him.” That is, in His beloved Son, “in the dispensation of the fulness of times, in order to unite all things in heaven and on earth under the head of Christ. In him we became heirs, having been predestined to this by the determination of Him who accomplishes everything according to the purpose of His will, so that we might serve for the praise of His glory.” 37. It will take an extremely long time to sort out certain places. But you feel, without a doubt you feel, with what clarity the apostolic sayings defend this grace, against which human merits are exalted, as if a person gives something first in order to be rewarded. Therefore, God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestining us as sons. He chose not because we of ourselves were going to be holy and blameless, but He chose and predestined that we should be. He did this according to the good will of His will, so that no one would boast of his own will, but of God’s will in relation to himself; He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good pleasure, which He first ordained in His beloved Son, in whom we also became heirs, being predestined to this according to a purpose: not ours, but the One who does all things, even to the point of working out the will itself in us (Phil. 2:13). He does it according to the counsel of His will, so that we may be to the praise of His glory. This is why we urge that “no one should boast about man” (1 Cor. 3, 21), and, therefore, by himself; but “let him who boasts boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31), so that we may praise His glory. For He Himself works according to His purpose, that we should be holy and blameless, to the praise of His glory, for which He called us, having predestined us before the foundation of the world. From this His intention comes the very calling of the faithful in the proper sense of the word, to whom all things work together for good. For they are called by purpose (Rom. 8:28), and the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. 38. But those for whom you care will perhaps say that the Pelagians object to the testimony of the apostle, where he says that we are therefore chosen in Christ and predestined before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love. For they believe that “having received the commandments, we ourselves, by free will, become holy and blameless before Him in love: that God, since He foreknew the future, chose and predestined us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” But the apostle says: Not because He foreknew us to be such, but that such we should be through the very election of His grace, which He blessed us with in His beloved Son. Having therefore predestined us, He foreknew His work, by which He makes us holy and blameless. Therefore, the error of the Pelagians is rightly exposed by this testimony. “We say,” they assert, “that God foreknew nothing except our faith, which we began to believe, and therefore chose us before the foundation of the world and predestined us that we also should be holy and blameless according to His work and grace.” But let them also listen to that testimony where the apostle says: “We have become heirs, being predestined to this according to the purpose of Him who completes all things.” Therefore, the One who does everything also does it so that we begin to believe. For this calling is the one about which it is said: “The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29); and in another place: “Not from works, but from Him who calls” (Rom. 9:12), - although the Apostle could have said: But from the believer, - and there is a calling that the Lord had in mind when he said: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15, 16), - a calling that is not even ahead of faith. For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe; lest we should be called first in His election. After all, then what is said will be false: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you,” which will not happen. We are called not because we believed, but that we might believe; and by this very calling, which is immutable, our faith is produced. However, we should not repeat here everything that we have said about such a lengthy issue. 39. Finally, in the passages that follow this testimony, the apostle thanks God for those who believed - not, of course, because the Gospel was preached to them, but because they believed. For he says: “In Him you also, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the earnest of our inheritance, for the redemption of His inheritance, to the praise of His glory. Therefore, when I heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and your love for all the saints, I thank God for you without ceasing" (Eph 1:13-16). Their faith was very recent and fresh after the preaching of the Gospel, and, hearing about this faith, the apostle thanks God for them. If he were to thank a person and at the same time believe or know that he did not give what he thanks him for, then this would be called flattery or ridicule rather than thanksgiving. “Do not be mistaken, God is not mocked” (Gal. 6:7) - for faith that has begun is also a gift, so that the thanksgiving of the apostle is not judged according to its merit as false or deceitful. So what? Was the beginning of faith not manifested among the Thessalonians, for which the same apostle, however, thanks God: “Therefore we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you received it not as the word of men, but as the word of God, as it truly is, which is at work in you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:13)? For what reason does the apostle give thanks? After all, it is vain and in vain to give thanks if the One whom he thanks has not done what he thanks. But, since this is not vain and not in vain, then, of course, God, whom he thanks for this, Himself did so that, having received the word of God from the apostle, they would accept it not as the word of man, but as the true word of God. So, God, working in human hearts through that purposeful calling, about which we have already said a lot, does not give them to hear the Good News in vain, but that having heard, they would be converted and believe. For they accept this not as the word of men, but as the true word of God. 40. In the letter to the Colossians the apostle instructs us that the very beginning of faith is a gift of God. He says this: “Be constant in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving. Pray also for us, that God will open the door for us to speak, to proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains, so that I may reveal it as I should proclaim it” (Col. 4:2-4). How then is the door opened for the word, if not by opening the mind of the hearer, so that he believes, and having believed, he receives what is preached as pertaining to the dispensation of saving doctrine? And so that with a closed heart the infidel does not reject and reject what is said to him? Therefore, in the letter to the Corinthians it is said: “But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a great and wide door is opened for me, and there are many adversaries” (1 Cor. 16:8-9). What else can be understood by this, except that after his initial preaching of the Gospel, many believed, and many became opponents of the same faith, according to the word of the Lord: “No one comes to Me unless it is given to him from My Father” (John 6:66). And in another place: “It has been given to you to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). So the door is open to those to whom it is given; many opponents are among those who are not given it. 41. Also in the second letter to the Corinthians, the apostle says: “When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, although the door was opened to me by the Lord, I had no rest for my spirit, because I did not find my brother Titus there; but after saying goodbye to them, I went to Macedonia.” To whom did he say goodbye, if not to those who believed, in whose hearts the door was opened for the evangelist? Notice what he adds after: “But thanks be to God, who always causes us to triumph in Christ and spreads by us the fragrance of the knowledge of Himself in every place. For we are a aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing: to some a savor of death unto death, and to others a savor of life unto life.” This is why the bravest warrior and the invincible defender of grace gives thanks: therefore he gives thanks because the apostles are the aroma of Christ to God - both in those who are saved by His grace and in those who perish by His judgment. But in order to tempt less those who do not understand this well, the apostle himself instructs, adding and saying: “And who is capable of this” (2 Cor. 2:12-16)? Let us return to the opening of the door, with which the apostle signified the beginning of faith. What does it mean: “Pray also for us, that God will open for us a door for the word” ( Col. 4:3 )? Isn’t this the clearest proof that the beginning of faith is a gift from God? For they would not have asked Him in prayer if they had not believed that He would grant it. This gift of heavenly grace descended on that scarlet merchant, to whom, as Scripture says in the Acts of the Apostles, “God opened her heart... to listen to what Paul said” (Acts 16:14). Because that's how she was called to believe. For in human hearts God does whatever He wants, whether helping or condemning, so that through them also that which “His hand and counsel had predestined to be” would be fulfilled (Acts 4:28). 42. So, it is in vain to say that what has been proven by the evidence of the books of Kings and Chronicles does not also apply to the issue we are discussing. Namely: when God wants something to happen that cannot happen otherwise than by human desire, then the hearts of people are inclined to desire this (1 Samuel 10:26; 1Chronicles 12:18). Moreover, He inclines them, who miraculously produces both desire and accomplishment (see above, in the letter of Hilary, paragraph 7). What does it mean to say nothing and yet contradict? Is it that they didn’t explain to you why they thought so, and you chose to keep silent about it in your message. But I don’t know what this explanation could be. Or maybe they are confused by the fact that we showed what God did in human hearts and how he led the will of those whom he wanted to lead to Saul or David being made king? And they believe that these examples do not apply to this question because to reign temporarily in the present age and to reign eternally with God are not the same thing? And therefore they believe that God inclines hearts to take possession of the earthly kingdom, but He does not incline hearts pleasing to Him to take possession of the Kingdom of Heaven? But I think that for the sake of the Heavenly Kingdom, and not for the sake of the earthly, it is said: “Incline my heart to your testimonies” (Ps. 119:36). Or: “Man’s feet are guided by the Lord, and He desires his way” (Ps. 36:23). Or: “The will of the Lord is prepared” (Prov. 8, according to Sept.). Or: “May our Lord be with us, as He was with our fathers: may He not leave us and not turn us away from Himself; may He incline our hearts to Himself, so that we may walk in all His ways” (1 Kings 8:57–58). Or: “I will give them a heart to know Me, and ears to hear” (Bar. 2:31). Let them hear the words: “The steps of a man are directed by the Lord, but how can a mortal comprehend his ways? "(Prov. 20, 24). And again: “Everyone seems righteous to himself, but the Lord rules the hearts” (Proverbs 21:2). And again: “And all who were destined for eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). Let them hear this and everything else that is not said and which proves that God also prepares and converts the will of people for the Kingdom of Heaven and for eternal life. Consider what it would be like if we believed that God influences the human will to establish earthly kingdoms, but does not influence the acquisition of the Kingdom of Heaven. 43. We have said a lot, and perhaps we were able to convince a long time ago of what we wanted, and we still continue to speak, addressing such glorious minds as if they were stupid people for whom too much is not enough. But let them forgive, because a new question pushed us to this. For, having demonstrated by sufficient evidence in previous writings that faith is also a gift of God, I discovered that I could be objected to regarding this evidence. They say that an increase in faith is a gift from God; the beginning of faith, by which we first believe in Christ, comes from man himself and is not a gift of God; but God requires this, so that when this precedes, the rest of God's gifts should be received as if for this merit. And so not one of them is given for free - and at the same time, the grace of God is preached in them, which is never deserved. You see how absurd this is, and for this reason we stood up as much as we could to show that the very beginning of faith is a gift of God. And if we did it longer than perhaps those for whom we did it wanted, then we are ready for reproaches. But let them admit that, although over a much longer time than they would like, and with greater boredom and monotony for those who understand, we still accomplished what we intended, that is, we taught that even the beginning of faith, like abstinence, patience, righteousness, piety and the rest, about which there is no disagreement with them, is a gift of God. So, here is the end of this book, so as not to be irritated by its extreme length. You might be interested in: