Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book II: On Predestination and Sufficient Grace
Chapter 14: The arguments from the Fathers are answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book II. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Besides the Scriptures, they bring forward also testimonies of the Fathers. Nor is this argument new, but most ancient: for St. Prosper writes, in the epistle to St. Augustine, that the Gauls who calumniated the same Augustine's judgment on predestination were wont to object this above all — that that judgment seemed contrary to the doctrine of the ancients. But the same Augustine answers, in the book On the Gift of Perseverance, that the ancient Fathers who flourished before Pelagius never treated this question accurately, but touched on it only incidentally, and as it were in passing. And he adds that in the foundation of this judgment — which is, that the grace of God is not prevented by any work of ours, but contrariwise all our works are prevented by it, so that nothing at all of good, as touching salvation, is in us which is not ours from God — all Catholics agree. And in the same place he cites Cyprian, Ambrose, and Nazianzen — to whom we can add Basil and Chrysostom. For Basil, in the oration on humility: “Nothing, O man, has been left thee for arrogance — thou whose glorying and hope is in mortifying all thine own, and in seeking in Christ the life to come; whose first-fruits having, we are already among these things, living wholly in grace and in the gift of God.” Chrysostom, homily 12 on the first to the Corinthians, treating that, “For who distinguisheth thee,” etc.: “Therefore what thou hast received, thou hast — and not only this or that, but whatever thou hast. For these are not thy merits, but the gifts of God.” And homily 24 [al. 34] on the same epistle he writes that all our possibility is placed in the help of God, to whom the whole is to be attributed. From these and other like sentences of the Fathers Augustine rightly gathers that the judgment and faith of gratuitous predestination has always been in the Catholic Church. For predestination from foreseen works cannot be defended unless something of good be posited in the just man, by which he is distinguished from the impious, which is not his from God — which assuredly all the Fathers with the highest consent reject. But let us see what is wont to be objected from the Fathers in particular, and in what way it is to be explained.
First, then, is brought forward St. Irenaeus, who in book 4, chapter 48 [al. 29], speaks thus: “As many as God knows will not believe — since he is the foreknower of all — he has delivered them to their unbelief, and turned his face from such, leaving them in the darkness which they have chosen for themselves.” I answer: this sentence is most true, since it teaches that God is just, and punishes only on account of sin — which things are most true; but it does not deny that God is merciful, and renders to certain men good for evil, plucking them by grace out of their own unbelief. And so Irenaeus says the very thing which before him the Apostle had said, Romans 1 — namely, that God delivered certain men to a reprobate sense, since their sins had so deserved, when they would not receive the offered knowledge of God, and faith. And as in time God delivered to their own unbelief those who would not believe, so in eternity he turned his face from those, and left in their own darkness those, whom he foresaw would by no means believe. Finally, this sentence places in man the cause why he is reprobated; it does not place there why he is predestinated.
In the second place is brought forward John Chrysostom, who, homily 31 [al. 30] on Matthew, writes that Matthew was then called by Christ when Christ saw that he would not repudiate the calling; and he says the same of those called to the vineyard, homily 56 [al. 64]. Again the same author, in the commentary on chapter 9 of the epistle to the Romans: “Many seemed better than Matthew, from the apparent evidence of works; but he who knows secret things, and can prove the aptitude of the thought — he knew the pearl even lying in the mire, and passing over the others, wondering at the beauty of this man, elected him; and having adjoined his own grace to the nobility of his will, pronounced him approved.” I answer: that very thing was the grace of predestination — that Christ willed to call Matthew then, when he foresaw he would not repudiate the calling. For why did he not so call the Tyrians and Sidonians and the men of Capharnaum, and so many others who did not believe, save because he had not predestinated them? For wisdom would not have been wanting to Christ, whereby he might call those men at such a time and in such a manner as he knew they would infallibly follow, had he willed so to call them. And so Chrysostom does not say that Christ predestinated Matthew because he foresaw he would not resist the calling; but he says that Christ called Matthew when he saw he would not resist. For he speaks of the execution of predestination, not of predestination itself; it was, then, an effect of predestination that Matthew, Christ calling him, was so disposed as not to resist the voice of Christ and the light of the Holy Spirit. And that beauty and nobility of will, and aptitude for the Apostolate, which Chrysostom says Christ wondered at in Matthew, is not something natural, but the very grace of predestination, which shone in Matthew, though a money-changer. For as in John 10 Christ calls heathen men and sinners his sheep, when he says, And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice — since by predestination they were sheep, though in fact they were then wolves; and as in John 11, when he writes that Christ was to die that he might gather into one the children of God that were dispersed, he names children of God, by reason of predestination, those who in fact were then children of the devil: so Christ, Chrysostom witnessing, saw that Matthew at the customs-bench was a pearl in the mire, since in predestination he was a pearl who in fact was then of the publicans and sinners. Hence Christ, wondering at that beauty and nobility of will which, as I said, shone in Matthew from predestination, elected him whom he knew to have been already elected by the Father before the foundation of the world; and when to the grace of predestination he had adjoined the grace of calling and justification, he rightly pronounced him approved. Thus, then, can Chrysostom's judgment be rightly expounded — above all since he himself, as we said a little before, homily 12 on the first to the Corinthians, attributes to the grace of God the whole of what is good in us.
In the third place they bring forward St. Ambrose, in the commentary on chapter 8 to the Romans, where he speaks thus: “They are called according to purpose whom God foreknew as believing, so that they were known before they believed. For whom he foreknew would be devoted to him, those he elected unto eternal rewards.” Likewise on chapter 9: “On him will I have mercy whom I have foreknown would, after his error, return to me with a right heart.” I answer: learned men judge, not without cause, that those commentaries are falsely attributed to St. Ambrose. But whosesoever they be, the sentence of this authority can be explained commodiously enough. For in the former place this author speaks not of predestination, but of calling, which is the effect of predestination. And it is most true that God calls according to purpose those whom he foreknows will believe and be devoted to him; but he foreknows they will believe and be devoted, since he knows he has predestinated them, and thereby also has prepared for them the grace by which without doubt they would be made believing and devoted. For St. Ambrose says, book 7 on Luke: “Whom he deigns, he calls; and whom he wills, he makes religious; and, had he willed, he would have made the Samaritans devoted from undevoted.” But, thou wilt say, though that author speak of calling when he says, “they are called according to purpose whom he foreknew as believing,” yet a little after he speaks of election, when he subjoins: “For whom he foreknew would be devoted to him, those he elected unto eternal rewards”; therefore God does not elect the predestinated unto glory unless he first foresee their good works. I answer: that “he elected” is perhaps to be understood of the election which is made in time, when men are called by God — of which Christ says: Have not I chosen you twelve? And: I have chosen you out of the world. And: You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you. For this election is the same as the calling according to purpose, and is not predestination, but the effect of predestination. But if anyone contend that it must be taken of the eternal election, it must be said that the eternal election can be considered in two ways: in one way, as it is the intention of giving glory; in another way, as it is the disposition of the execution, and as it were the execution in the divine mind. For in the former way election is merely gratuitous, and prerequires no foreseeing of good works; and of this the Lord says, Luke 12: it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom. In the latter way it does prerequire the foreseeing of merits: for God has not disposed to give eternal life, under the notion of a reward, save to those whom he foresaw would work well; and of this that author rightly says: whom he foreknew would be devoted to him, those he elected unto eternal rewards. And that this may be better understood, it is to be considered that glory, in the kind of final cause, is prior to good works — for it is the end, they are the means to the end; but in the kind of efficient cause good works are prior to glory itself, since they are causes, it is the effect. God therefore wills glory to the elect before good works, as to intention — for he therefore wills to give them good merits because he wills to give the crown of glory; for the end is prior in intention to the means, since the means are not intended save for the end; and in this way he does not elect unto glory from the foreseeing of merits, but contrariwise elects unto merits from the foreseeing of glory. But as to the will of execution, which regards glory as the effect of merits, God wills to give the elect good merits before the crown of glory; and in this way God elected unto glory from the foreseeing of good works. And by this distinction can be explained very many sayings of the Fathers, and above all of the Greeks — Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, on chapters 8 and 9 to the Romans — who say that God predestinated unto glory those whose good purpose he had foreknown; for they take predestination and election for the will of giving eternal life on account of merits, that is, for the disposition of the execution, as we have said; for the Fathers, when they spoke to the people, said those things which seemed more useful for stirring men to good works. And what was objected in the last place from the aforesaid author — “On him will I have mercy whom I have foreknown would return to me, after his error, with his whole heart” — has no difficulty. For mercy signifies in that place the purpose of justification: for God has disposed to justify those whom he foreknew would be converted with the whole heart — that is, truly and from the soul. But none are converted to God with the whole heart save those whom he converts by preventing, stirring, and helping; hence he will have mercy on those by justifying them, on whom he has had mercy by calling them according to purpose; and he will have mercy on those by calling them according to purpose, on whom he has had mercy by predestinating them. And this is what the Apostle witnesses was said to Moses, Romans 9: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.
Fourth, they bring forward St. Jerome, who in the epistle to Hedibia, question 10, speaks thus: “The vessels of mercy are not only the people of the gentiles, but also those of the Jews who willed to believe.” From which it is shown that not nations are elected, but the wills of men. Likewise book 1 on the epistle to the Galatians, treating those words, “when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother's womb,” etc.: “From the foreknowledge of God it comes to pass that him whom he knows will be just he loves before he comes forth from the womb.” The same he also repeats in the commentary on chapter 1 of Malachias. Some bring forward also commentaries of Jerome on chapters 8 and 9 to the Romans; but that these are not Jerome's, but Pelagius's, or some Pelagian's, is not doubtful. I answer: in the former testimony St. Jerome speaks of the election unto justification, through which men are made clean vessels, and unto honor. Now God elects unto justification those whom he foresees will believe; but he foresees those will believe to whom he has foreknown he will give faith. By like reasoning God loves the men, as is said in the latter testimony, whom he foreknows will be just; but he foreknows those will be just whom he first loved that they might become just.
Last, two places of St. Augustine are wont to be adduced. The first place is in the book On Predestination and Grace, chapter 15, where Augustine seems to refer the distinction of the just from the unjust, as to its last cause, to their free will. The other place is in the book of Eighty-three Questions, question 68, where these words are had: “He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth; but this will of God cannot be unjust, for it comes from most hidden merits; for though sinners themselves have made one mass on account of the general sin, yet there is not on that account no diversity among them. Something therefore precedes in some sinners, by which, though they be not yet justified, they are made worthy of justification; and likewise something precedes in other sinners, by which they are worthy of blunting.” I answer: the book On Predestination and Grace is not judged by learned men to be a work of St. Augustine, since no mention of it is made in the Retractations, nor in the little index of Possidius. But whoever was the author of that little book, he does not seem, in my judgment at least, to dissent from Augustine's judgment: for, to omit many other places, he speaks thus in chapter 10: “That this divine election, therefore, is not rendered to merits, but is given to men by the sole munificence of the will, Moses showed even then, though he was teaching a carnal people,” etc. In the place objected to us, then, that author does indeed refer the distinction of the just man from the impious to the wills of men; but presently he adjoins that the last resolution is made into the will of God, who mercifully helped the one, and justly deserted the other. As touching the other place: Peter Lombard, in book 1 of the Sentences, distinction 41, judges that St. Augustine retracted this place when he retracted other like things. But there is no need to fly to the asylum of retractation: for St. Augustine does not in that place discourse of predestination, which has no cause on the side of men, but of hardening and justification, which have causes on the side of men — though often, as he himself says, most secret. For God hardens men on account of sins, and justifies on account of merits: for so Augustine calls, both in this place and everywhere else, the dispositions toward justification — which yet are not merits in them save from grace: “For grace” (as the same Augustine says in epistle 106) “merits to be increased, that, increased, it may merit also to be perfected.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. # Solvuntur argumenta ex Patribus. Praeter Scripturas, adferunt etiam testi¬ monia Patrum. Neque est hoc novum argu¬ mentum, sed antiquissimum. Scribit enim S. Prosper in epist. ad S. Augustinum Gallos, qui sententiam ejusdem Augustini de prae¬ destinatione calumniabantur, illud potissi¬ mum objicere solitos, quod ea sententia ve¬ terum doctrina) videretur esse contraria. Sed respondet idem Augustinus in lib. de bono perseverantiae, veteres Patres, qui ante Pelagium floruerunt, qua)stionem istam nunquam accurate tractasse, sed incidenter solum, et quasi per transitum illam attigisse. Addit vero in fundamento hujus sententia) quod est gratiam Dei non praeveniri ab ul¬ lo opere nostro, sed contra, ab illa omnia no¬ stra opera praeveniri, ita ut nihil omnino boni, quod attinet ad salutem, sit in nobis, quod non sit nobis ex Deo, convenire Catho¬ licos omnes. Et ibidem citat Cyprianum, Am¬ brosium et Nazianzenum, quibus addere pos¬ sumus Basilium et Chrysostomum. Basilius enim in orat, de humilitate : u Nihil, inquit, reliquit tibi, ohomo, ad arro¬ gantiam, cui gloriatio, ac spes est in morti¬ ficando omnia sua, et quaerendo in Christo vitam futuram, cujus primitias habentes jam in his sumus, in totum in gratia viventes, et dono Dei. » Chrysostomus homil. 12. ini. ad Corinth. tractans illud, Quis enim te discernit, elc. Igitur, inquit, quod accepisti habes, neque hoc tantum, aut illud, sed quidquid habes. Non enim merita tua haec sunt, sed dona Dei. » Et homil. 24. in eam dem epistol. scri¬ bit, omnem nostram possibilitatem esse po¬ sitam in auxilio Dei, cui totum est tribuen¬ dum. Ex his aliisque similibus Patrum sen¬ tentiis recte colligit Augustinus, gratuitae praedestinationis sententiam, et fidem in Ec¬ clesia Catholica semper fuisse. Neque enim defendi potest praedestinatio ex operibus, praevisis, nisi aliquid boni ponatur in homi¬ ne justo, quo discernatur ab impio, quodi non sit illi a Deo ; quod sane Patres omnes summa consensione rejiciunt. Sed vide¬ amus, quid ex Patribus particulatim objic soleat, et qua ratione sit explicandum. Primum igitur profertur S. Irenreus, qui in lib. 4. cap. 48. ita loquitur: « Quotquot scit non credituros Deus, cum sit omnium praecognilor, tiadidit cos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt. » Respondeo : haec sententia verissima est, quoniam docet, Deum esse justum, et non punire nisi propter peccatum, quae verissima sunt : non autem negat, Deum esse miseri¬ cordem, et quibusdam reddere bona pro malis eruendo eos per gratiam ab infidelita¬ te ipsorum. Itaque Irenaous id ipsum dicit, quod ante eum Apostolus dixerat, ad Ro- man. i, nimirum, Deum tradidisse, quosdam in reprobum sensum, quoniam ita meruerant eorum peccata, cum oblatam Dei cognitio¬ nem, etfidem recipere noluissent. Et quem¬ admodum in tempore Deus illos tradidit in¬ fidelitati ipsorum, et qui credere noluerunt, sic in aeternitate ab illis avertit faciem, eos- que in suis tenebris dereliquit, quos minime credituros fuisse prmvidit. Denique haec sen¬ tentia, ponit causam in homine, cur repro¬ betur, non ponit cur praedestinetur Secundo loco profertur Joannes Chryso- stomus, qui homil. 31. in Matth. scribit, Matthaeum tunc vocatum esse a Christo, cum Christus vidit eum non repudiaturum vocationem. Et idem dicit de vocatis ad vi¬ neam, homil. 56. Rursus idem auctor in (I) Joan. I, 9; I Tim. II, 4; II Pet. III, 9. Tom. V, 3? 570 LIBER II. comment. ad cap. ix. epist. ad Rora. : « Mul¬ ti, inquit, Matthaeo meliores esse videbantur ab apparenti operum argumento ; verum qui arcana novit, quique cogitationis aptitu- dinem probare potest, is et in cceno marga¬ ritam jacentem novit, omissisque aliis, admi¬ ratus hujus pulchritudinem, illum elegit, vo¬ luntatisque nobilitati suam cum adjunxisset gratiam, probatum illum esse prononciavit.» Respondeo : illa ipsa fuit gratia praedesti¬ nationis, quod Christus tunc vocare volue¬ rit Matthaeum, cum eum praevidit non repu¬ diaturum esse vocationem. Cur enim non sic vocavit Tyrios, et Sidonios et Capharnaitas, aliosque tam multos, qui non crediderunt, nisi quia non eos praedestinaverat ? neque enim defuisset Christo sapientia, qua tali tempore et modo illos vocaret, quo sciret in- infallibiliter secuturos, si eos ita vocare vo¬ luisset. Itaque non dicit Chrysostomus Christum Praedestinasse Matthaeum, quia praevidit eum non reluctaturum vocationi, sed dicit, Chri¬ stum vocasse Matthaeum, quando vidit eum non reluctaturum. Loquitur enim de executio- ne praedestinationis, non de ipsa praedestina¬ tione; effectus igitur praedestinationis fuit, ut Matthaeus, vocante se Christo, ita dispositus esset, ut Christi voci, et Spiritus sancti lumi¬ ni non resisteret. Illa vero pulchritudo et nobilitas volunta¬ tis, atque aptitudo ad Apostolatum,quam in Matthaeo Christum admiratum esse Chrysosto¬ mus dicit, non est aliquid naturale, sed ipsa gratia praedestinationis, quae in Matthaeo, quamvis fceneratore lucebat. Sicut enim Johan. x, Christus vocait oves suas homi¬ nes ethnicos et peccatores, cum ait : Alias oves habeo , qux non sunt ex hoc ovili , et illas oportet me adducere , et vocem meam audient (I); quoniam praedestinatione oves erant, quam¬ vis reipsa tunc lupi essent; et sicut Johan. II. cum scribit, Christum moriturum fuisse, ut tilios Dei, qui erant dispersi, congregaret in unum, filios Dei nominat ratione praede¬ stinationis eos, qui reipsa tunc filii diaboli e- rant. Ita Christus, Chrysostomo teste, vidit Matthaeum in telonio esse margaritam in coe- no, quoniam in praedestinatione margarita erat, qui re ipsa tunc ex publicanis et pec¬ catoribus erat. Proinde admiratus Christus eam pulchri¬ tudinem et nobilitatem voluntatis, quae in Matthaeo ut dixi, ex praedestinatione lucebat illum elegit, quem a Patre, jam ante mundi constitutionem electum sciebat, et cum gra¬ tiae praedestinationis, gratiam vocationis et justificationis adjunxisset, probatum illum jure pronuntiavit. Ita igitur Chrysost. sen- tiaten recte exponi potest, praesertim cum ipse, ut paulo ante diximus, homil. 12. in i. ad Corinth. totum quod in nobis est boni, Dei gratiae tribuat. Tertio loco proferunt S. Ambrosium in comment. ad cap. vm. ad Roman. ubi sic ait; « Illi secundum propositum vocantur, quos credentes praescivit Deus , ut antequam crederent scirentur. Quos enim praescivit si¬ bi devotos futuros, ipsos elegit ad aeterna praemia. » Item incap. 9 : « Ejus, inquit, mi¬ serebor, quem praescivi post errorem recto corde reversurum ad me. » Respondeo : commentarios istos falso tri¬ bui sancto Ambrosio, viri docti non sine causa judicant. Sed cujuscumque sint, satis commode potest hujus auctoritafis sententia explicari. Naim in priore loco, non loquitur auctor iste de praedestinatione, sed de voca¬ tione, quae est praedestinationis effectus. Ve¬ rissimum autem est, Deum vocare secundum propositum eos, quos praescit credituros sibi- que devotos futuros; credituros autem et de¬ votos futuros praenoscit, quoniam scit se eos praedestinasse , ac per hoc etiam eis praepa¬ rasse gratiam, qua sine dubio credentes et devoti efficerentur. Dicit enim S. Ambrosius in lib. vn. in Luc.: « Quos dignatur, vocat, et quem vult, religiosum facit ; et, si voluisset, Samaritanos de indevotis devotos fecisset. » At, inquies, tametsi auctor ille loquatur de vocatione, cum ait, illi secundum propo¬ situm vocantur, quos credentes praescivit : tamen paulo post loquitur de electione, cum subjungit : « Quos enim praescivit sibi de¬ votos futuros, ipsos elegit ad aeterna prae¬ mia. » Igitur Deus non eligit praedestinatos ad gloriam, nisi prius opera ipsorum bona praevideat. Respondeo : illud, elegit, fortasse intelli- gendum esse de electione, quae fit in tempo¬ re, cum homines a Deo vocantur, de qua Christus dicit : Ego vos duodecim elegi. Et : Ego elegi vos de mundo. Et : Non vos me ele¬ gistis, sed ego elegi vos. Haec enim electio idem est cum vocatione secundum proposi¬ tum, et non est praedestinatio, sed praedesti- Q) Joan. X, J6. CAPUT XIV. r>7i nationis effectus. Sed si quis contendat, acci¬ piendum esse de electione aeterna, dicendum erit electionem aeternam duobus modis con¬ siderari posse : uno modo, ut est intentio dandi gloriam ; alio modo, ut est dispositio exeeutionis, et quasi exeeutio in mente divi¬ na. Nam priore modo electio est mere gra¬ tuita ,• et nullam praerequirit prae visionem operum bonorum, et de hac dicit Dominus Luc. xii : Complacuit Patri vestro dare vobis regnum (1). Posteriore modo praeexigit prae- visionem meritorum. Non enim vitam aeter¬ nam sub ratione praemii Deus dare disposuit, nisi iis, quos bene operaturos esse praevidit. Et de hac iste auctor recte dicit, quos prae¬ scivit sibi devotos futuros, ipsos elegit ad aeterna praemia. Ut autem id melius intelligatur , conside¬ randum est, gloriam, in genere causae fina¬ lis priorem esse bonis operibus. Ipsa enim est finis, illa sunt media ad finem : in genere autem causae efficientis priora esse opera bona, quam sit ipsa gloria, quoniam illa sunt causae, ipsa est effectus. Deus igitur . prius vult electis gloriam, quam bona opera, quoad intentionem, ideo enim vult illis dare bona merita, quia vult dare coronam gloriae; nam prior est finis in intentione, quam me¬ dia , cum non intendantur media , nisi propter finem ; et hoc modo non eligit ad gloriam, ex praevisione meritorum, sed con¬ tra eligit ad merita ex praevisione gloriae. At quoad voluntatem exeeutionis, quae res¬ picit gloriam, ut effectum meritorum, prius vult Deus electis dare bona merita quam gloriae coronam, et hoc modo elegit Deus ad gloriam, ex praevisione operum bonorum. Atque hac distinctione poterunt explicari plurima dicta Patrum, ac praesertim Graeco¬ rum, Thcodoreti, Theophylacti, QEcumenii in cap. 8. et 9. ad Iloman. qui dicunt, Deum praedestinasse ad gloriam eos, quorum bo¬ num propositum ante praenoverat. Acci¬ piunt enim praedestinationem et electionem pro voluntate dandi vitam aeternam propter merita, id est, pro dispositione exeeutionis, ut diximus; Patres enim cum ad populum verba facerent, ea dicebant, quae utiliora videban¬ tur ad excitandos homines ad opera bona. Illud autem quod ultimo loco objiciebatur ex praedicto auctore : « Ejus miserebor, quem praescivi post errorem toto corde rc- versurnm ad me, » difficultatem non habet. Significat enim eo loco misecordia proposi¬ tum justificationis; illos enim Deus justifica¬ re disposuit, quos praescrivit toto corde, id est, vere et ex animo convertendos. Nulli autem toto corde convertuntur ad Deum, nisi quos ille praeveniendo, excitando et adjuvando convertit; proinde illorum miserebitur eos justificando, quorum misertus fuerit eos vo¬ cando secundum propositum, et illorum mi¬ serebitur eos vocando secundum propositum , quorum misertus fuerit eos praedestinando. Atque hoc est quod ad Mosem dictum fuisse testatur Apostolus ad Roman. ix. Miserebor cujus misertus fuero , et misericordiam prse- stabo cui miserebor (2). Quarto, proferunt S. Hieronymum, qui in epist. ad Hedibiam quaest. 10. sic ait : « Va¬ sa misericordiae non solum populus gentium est, sed etiam qui ex Judaeis credere volue¬ runt. » Ex quo ostenditur, non gentes eligi, sed hominum voluntates. Item lib. i. in epist. ad Galat. tractans illa verba : «Cum placuit ei, qui me segregavit ex utero, » etc. ; « Ex Dei praescientia, inquit, evenit, ut quem scit justum futurum prius diligat, quam oriatur ex utero. » Idem quoque repetit in comment. ad cap. i. Malach. Proferunt eti¬ am aliqui commentariallieronymi in cap. VITI, et ix. ad Roman. sed ea non Hieronymi esse, sed Pelagii, aut Pelagiani alicujus non du¬ bium est. Respondeo : in priore testimonio loquitur sanctus Hieronymus de electione ad justifi¬ cationem, per quam homines efficiuntur va¬ sa munda , et in honorem. Elegit autem Deus ad justificationem, quos praevidet cre¬ dituros ; sed illos praevidet credituros, quibus fidem se donaturum esse praenovit. Pari ra¬ tione diligit Deus homines, ut dicitur in po¬ steriore testimonio, quos praescit justos futu¬ ros, sed illos praescit justos futuros, quos prius dilexit ut justi fierent. Postremo, adduci solent duo loca S. Au¬ gustini. Primus locus est in libro de praede¬ stinatione et grat. cap. 15. ubi videtur Au- gustin. discretionem justorum ab injustis referre, tamquam in ultimam causam, in ea¬ rum liberam voluntatem. Alter locus est in lib. 83. quaestionum, quaest. 68. ubi haben¬ tur haec verba : « Cui vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat : sed haec voluntas Dei injusta esse non potest, venit enim de occul¬ tissimis meritis ; quia et ipsi peccatores sunt, (1) Luc. XII, 32. — (2) Rora. IX, 15. 572 jJbea ii. eum propter generale peccatum unam mas¬ sam fecerint; tamen non ideo nulla inter eos diversitas est, praecedit ergo aliquid in pec¬ catoribus, quo, quamvis nondum justificati sint, digni efficiantur justificatione, et item pra;cedit in aliis peccatoribus, quo digni sint obtusione. »‘ Respondeo : liber de praedestinatione et gratia non judicatur ab hominibus doctis, S. August. opus, cum nulla ejus fiat mentio in retractationibus, neque in indiculo Possi- dii. Sed quisquis fuerit ejus libelli auctor, non videtur, meo quidem judicio, ab Augu¬ stini sententia dissentire. Nam, ut omittam alia multa loca, sic loquiturcap. 40. « Hanc, itaque, divinam electionem non meritis red¬ di, sed sola voluntatis munificentia donari hominibus, Moses cum jam tunc, quamvis carnalem populum doceret, ostendit, ctc. » In loco igitur nobis objecto, refert quidem ille auctor discretionem justi ab impio in hominum voluntates, sed mox adjungit, ul¬ timam resolutionem fieri in Dei voluntatem ; qui unum misericorditer adjuvit, alterum juste deseruit. Quod attinet ad alterum locum, Petrus Dombardus in iv. lib. sentent. distinet. 41. existimat sanctum Augustinum retractasse hunc locum, cum alia similia Retractavit. Sed non est opus ad retractationis asylum confugere : non enim disserit eo loco san¬ ctus August. de praedestinatione, quie nul¬ lam habet causam ex parte hominum, sed de obduratione et justificatione, quae habent causas ex parte hominum, quamvis saepe, ut ipse dicit, secretissimas. Obdurat enim Deus homines propter peccata, et justificat pro¬ pter merita. Sic enim vocat Augustinus et hoc loco, et alibi passim dispositiones ad justificationem, quae tamen merita non sunt in illis, nisi ex gratia : « Gratia enim (ut idem Augustinus ait in epist. 406.) meretur augeri, ut aucta mereatur et perfici. »