Part 17
—Matthew 27:52–53
By this he gave a sure pledge that everything he had done or suffered to acquire salvation for mankind belonged no less to the believers of the Old Testament than to us.
Indeed, they possessed the same Spirit that we possess, by whom God regenerates his people unto eternal life. Since we see that God's Spirit—who is like a seed of immortality within us, and for this reason is called the pledge of our inheritance—dwelt in them, how dare we deprive them of the inheritance of life?
A prudent person cannot sufficiently marvel that the Sadducees anciently fell into such great stupidity as to deny the resurrection and
the immortality of souls, since both are so clearly demonstrated in Scripture.
We should be no less astonished by the brutish ignorance visible today among the whole Jewish people, in that they foolishly expect an earthly kingdom from Christ, had it not been foretold that such a punishment would come upon them for despising Jesus Christ and his gospel. For it was just that God should strike them with such blindness, since they extinguished the light presented to them and preferred darkness.
They therefore read Moses and continually meditate upon his writings, but the veil prevents them from beholding the light of his countenance. That veil shall always remain until they learn to refer Moses to Christ, from whom they now turn him away as much as they possibly can.
What then? someone will ask. Shall there remain no difference between the Old and New Testaments? And what shall we say to the many passages of Scripture which contrast them as things widely different?
I answer that I willingly accept all the differences which we find set forth in Scripture, provided that they detract nothing from the unity we have already established, as will be easy to see when we have treated them in order.
As far as I have been able to observe from a careful consideration of Scripture, there are four such differences, though if anyone wishes to add a fifth, I shall not object. I undertake to show that they all belong, and must be referred, to the different manner which God
employed in administering his doctrine rather than to its substance. Thus nothing will prevent the promises of the Old and New Testaments from remaining alike, or Christ from being acknowledged as the sole foundation of both.
The first difference, then, is this: although God always willed his people to raise their understanding toward the heavenly inheritance and fix their hearts upon it, nevertheless, in order to sustain them more effectively in the hope of invisible things, he caused them to behold that inheritance under earthly benefits and gave them, as it were, some foretaste of it.
Now, having revealed the grace of the future life more clearly through the gospel, he directs our minds straight toward meditation upon it, without training us through inferior things as he did the Israelites. Those who do not consider this purpose of God imagine that the ancient people never rose any higher than to expect those things which belonged to bodily comfort.
They see that the land of Canaan is so frequently named as the supreme reward given to those who observed God's Law. On the other hand, they see that God threatens the Jews with nothing more grievous than exterminating them from the land he had given them and scattering them among foreign nations. Finally, they see that nearly all the blessings and curses recited by Moses return to this same point.
From this they confidently conclude that God separated the Jews from other peoples not for their own benefit, but for ours, so that the Christian Church might possess an outward image in which to contemplate spiritual things. But since Scripture demonstrates that
through all the earthly promises God made to them, he intended to lead them by the hand into the hope of his heavenly graces, failure to recognize this method reveals excessive dullness—indeed, sheer brutishness.
This, then, is the point we must debate with such people. They say that the land of Canaan, which the people of Israel regarded as their supreme blessedness, represents our heavenly inheritance. We maintain, on the contrary, that in the earthly possession they enjoyed, they beheld the future inheritance prepared for them in heaven.
This will be made clearer by the comparison Saint Paul gives in the Epistle to the Galatians. He compares the Jewish people to an heir who is still a little child and, being incapable of governing himself, remains under the authority of a guardian or tutor.
"As long as the heir is a child, he differs in nothing from a servant, though he is lord of all, but remains under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by his father."
—Galatians 4:1–2
It is true that Saint Paul is principally treating the ceremonies there, but that does not prevent us from applying his statement to our present subject. We see, therefore, that the same inheritance was assigned to them as to us, but that they were not yet capable of enjoying it fully. The same Church existed among them as exists among us, but it was still in its childhood.
Therefore, the Lord maintained them under this tutelage: he did not give them the spiritual promises plainly, but instead presented them with an image and figure of them under earthly promises. Thus, when he received Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all their descendants into the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan as an inheritance—not so that their affections should rest there, but so that by beholding it they might be confirmed in the certain hope of the true inheritance prepared for them in heaven, which did not yet appear.
And lest they should be deceived, he also added a higher promise testifying that this earthly land was not the supreme and principal blessing he intended to bestow upon them. Thus, when Abraham received the promise that he would possess the land of Canaan, he did not stop at what he could see, but was raised upward by the accompanying promise:
"Abraham, I am your protector and your exceedingly great reward."
—Genesis 15:1
We see that the ultimate end of his reward was placed in God, so that he should not expect a transitory reward from this world, but an incorruptible one in heaven. We see that possession of the land of Canaan was promised to him only on the condition that it should serve as a token of God's goodwill and a figure of the heavenly inheritance.
Indeed, the statements of believers demonstrate that they understood it in this way. Thus David was prompted by God's
temporal blessings to meditate upon his supreme grace when he said:
"My heart and my flesh languish with desire to behold you, O Lord. The Lord is my inheritance forever."
—Psalm 73:26; Psalm 84:2
Again:
"The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and all my good."
—Psalm 16:5
Again:
"I cried to the Lord, saying, 'You are my hope and my inheritance in the land of the living.'"
—Psalm 142:5
Certainly, all who dare speak in this manner demonstrate that they rise above this world and all present things.
Nevertheless, the Prophets most frequently describe the blessedness of the coming age under the image and figure which they had received from God. According to this pattern we must understand those passages which say that the righteous shall inherit the land while the wicked shall be exterminated from it.
"The upright shall dwell in the land, but the wicked shall be cut off from it."
—Proverbs 2:21–22
Likewise, Jerusalem shall abound in riches and Zion in the abundance of every good thing. We understand that this does not properly belong to this mortal life, which is like a pilgrimage, nor did it belong to the earthly city of Jerusalem. Rather, it belongs to the true country of believers and to the heavenly city in which God has prepared blessing and life forever.
For this reason, the saints under the Old Testament esteemed this mortal life more highly than we ought to do today. Although they knew perfectly well that they were not to rest in it as their final end, nevertheless, because they also understood that God represented his grace to them through it in order to confirm them in hope according to their childhood, they regarded it with greater affection than they would have done had they considered it merely in itself.
Now, just as the Lord, by testifying to his goodwill toward believers through earthly benefits, represented the spiritual blessedness toward which they were to aspire, so, on the other hand, the bodily punishments he inflicted upon evildoers were signs of his future judgment upon the reprobate. Therefore, just as God's benefits were then more visibly displayed in temporal things, so also were his acts of vengeance.
The ignorant, failing to consider this correspondence between the punishments and rewards of that time, marvel that there should appear to be such variation in God. Since anciently he was so quick and sudden in taking severe vengeance upon men immediately after they offended him, they wonder why now, as though he had moderated his anger, he punishes more gently and less frequently.
They come very close, for this reason, to imagining different gods of the Old and New Testaments.
But we shall easily free ourselves from every such difficulty if we remember the divine administration we have noted: during the time when God delivered his covenant to the people of Israel, he presented it in a somewhat veiled form.
He intended, on the one hand, to signify and represent the eternal blessedness he promised them under his earthly benefits, and, on the other, the horrible damnation awaiting the wicked under bodily punishments.
The second difference between the Old and New Testaments lies in their figures. While the truth was still absent, the Old Testament represented it through images and possessed the shadow in place of the body. The New Testament contains the truth present and the substance itself.
Nearly all the passages in which the Old Testament is contrasted with the New should be referred to this difference, although nowhere is the subject treated more fully than in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There the Apostle argues against those who believed that all religion would be destroyed if the ceremonies of Moses were abolished.
To refute this error, he first takes what the Prophet had said concerning the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Since the Father appointed him an eternal High Priest, it is certain that the Levitical priesthood, in which one priest succeeded another, has been abolished. He proves that this new priesthood is more excellent than the former because it was established by an oath.
He then adds that when the priesthood was thus transferred, the covenant was also changed. Moreover, he shows that this was necessary because the Law possessed such weakness that it could not lead anyone to perfection. He then explains what this weakness was: it possessed outward ordinances which could not perfect their observers with respect to the conscience, since the blood of brute beasts cannot blot out sins or acquire true holiness.
He therefore concludes that the Law contained a shadow of the good things to come, not the living presence which is given to us in the gospel.
Here we must consider the particular respect in which he compares the legal covenant with the evangelical covenant, and the office of Moses with that of Christ. For if this comparison concerned the substance of the promises, there would be a great contradiction between the two Testaments. But since we see that the Apostle is directing us elsewhere, we must follow his intention if we would rightly discover the truth.
Let us therefore set before us the covenant which God once made to endure forever. The fulfillment by which it is ratified and confirmed is Jesus Christ. While Christ still had to be awaited, the Lord ordained through Moses ceremonies which would serve as signs and representations of him.
This, then, was the matter in controversy: whether the ceremonies commanded in the Law had to cease in order to give place to Jesus Christ. Although these ceremonies were only incidental or accessory to the Old Testament, nevertheless, because they were the instruments by which God maintained his people in its doctrine, they
bear its name, just as Scripture customarily attributes to the sacraments the names of the things they represent.
In short, therefore, the Old Testament here means the solemn manner by which the Lord's covenant was confirmed to the Jews, consisting of sacrifices and other ceremonies. Because there is nothing firm or substantial in these if we do not pass beyond them, the Apostle maintains that they had to end and be abolished in order to give place to Jesus Christ, who is the guarantor and Mediator of a better covenant. Through this covenant eternal sanctification was once for all acquired for the elect, and the transgressions which remained under the Old Testament were abolished.
Or, if anyone prefers, we may define it in this manner: the Old Testament was the doctrine God gave to the Jewish people, wrapped in ceremonial observances which possessed neither efficacy nor permanence in themselves. For this reason it was temporary, because it remained, as it were, suspended until it was supported by its fulfillment and confirmed in its substance.
But it became new and eternal when it was confirmed and established in the blood of Christ. For this reason Christ called the cup which he gave his disciples at the Supper:
"The cup of the New Testament in my blood."
—Luke 22:20
He thereby indicated that when God's covenant is sealed in his blood, its truth is fulfilled, and it thus becomes a new and eternal covenant.
From this it is evident in what sense Saint Paul says that the Jews were conducted to Christ by the elementary instruction of the Law before he was manifested in the flesh. He readily confesses that they were God's children and heirs, but because they were still in their childhood, he says that they were placed under the care of a tutor.
"The Law was our tutor to lead us to Christ."
—Galatians 3:24
For it was fitting that before the Sun of Righteousness had risen, there should not be such fullness of revealed light or such clear understanding.
The Lord therefore dispensed the light of his word to them in such a way that they still beheld it only from afar. Accordingly, when Saint Paul wished to describe this limited understanding, he used the language of childhood, saying that at that age the Lord instructed them through ceremonies, as by rudiments or elementary lessons suited to children, until Christ was manifested to increase the knowledge of his people and confirm them so that they should no longer remain in childhood.
This is the distinction Jesus Christ made when he said:
"The Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist; since then the kingdom of God has been proclaimed."
—Matthew 11:13; Luke 16:16
What did Moses and the Prophets teach in their time? They gave some taste and savor of the wisdom which was one day to be
revealed, and showed it from afar. But when Jesus Christ could be pointed out with the finger, the kingdom of God was opened. For in him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, by which we may ascend almost to the highest heaven.
Nor is this contradicted by the fact that scarcely one person could be found in the Christian Church worthy to be compared with Abraham in steadfastness of faith, or that the Prophets possessed such great understanding that it remains sufficient to illuminate the world today. For we are not considering here what graces our Lord conferred upon particular individuals, but the general order which he observed at that time.
This order appears even in the doctrine of the Prophets, although they possessed a singular privilege above others. For their preaching is obscure, as of something distant, and is enclosed within figures. Moreover, whatever revelations they received, because it was necessary for them to submit to the common tutelage of the whole people, they were numbered among the children like everyone else.
Finally, there was never in those days any understanding so clear that it did not in some measure savor of the obscurity of the age. This is why Jesus Christ said:
"Many kings and prophets desired to see the things you see and did not see them, and to hear the things you hear and did not hear them. Therefore, blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear."
—Matthew 13:16–17
Indeed, it was right that the presence of Jesus Christ should possess this privilege: to bring to the world a fuller understanding of the heavenly mysteries than had previously existed.
Let us now come to the third difference, which is taken from Jeremiah:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah—not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they broke and annulled it, although they were under my dominion.
"But the covenant which I shall make with the house of Israel shall be this: I will write my Law within them and engrave it upon their hearts, and I will be gracious to forgive their offenses. Then no one shall teach his neighbor, for they shall all know me, from the greatest to the least."
—Jeremiah 31:31–34
From this passage Saint Paul took occasion to make his comparison between the Law and the gospel, calling the Law a doctrine of the letter, a ministry of death and condemnation written upon tablets of stone, but the gospel a spiritual doctrine of life and righteousness engraved upon the heart. He further says that the Law must be abolished, while the gospel shall remain forever.
Since Saint Paul's intention was to explain the Prophet's meaning, it will be sufficient to consider the words of one in order to understand
both, although they differ somewhat from one another. For the Apostle speaks more severely of the Law than the Prophet does. He does this not by considering simply the nature of the Law itself, but because certain troublemakers, through their disordered zeal for the ceremonies, endeavored to obscure the brightness of the gospel. He was therefore compelled to discuss the Law in relation to their error and foolish attachment. We must note this as something distinctive in Saint Paul's treatment.
As to the agreement between him and Jeremiah, because both contrast the Old Testament with the New, neither considers anything in the Law except what properly belongs to it.
For example, the Law contains here and there promises of God's mercy. But because these are derived from another source, they are not taken into account when the nature of the Law itself is being considered. They attribute to the Law only the following: that it commands what is good and righteous; forbids every wickedness; promises a reward to those who observe righteousness; and threatens sinners with God's vengeance, without possessing the power to change or correct the perversity naturally present in all men.
Let us now explain point by point the comparison made by the Apostle. According to him, the Old Testament is of the letter because it was proclaimed without the effective working of the Holy Spirit.
The New Testament is spiritual because the Lord has engraved it upon the hearts of his people. Therefore, the second contrast Saint Paul makes serves to explain the first. The Old Testament is deadly because it can do nothing but envelop the whole human race in the
curse. The New is an instrument of life because, by delivering us from the curse, it restores us to God's grace.
His next statement tends toward the same end. The first is a ministry of condemnation because it demonstrates that all Adam's children are guilty of unrighteousness. The second is a ministry of righteousness because it reveals God's mercy, in which we are justified.
The final part must be referred to the ceremonies. Because they were images of things not yet present, they necessarily vanished with time. But because the gospel contains the body itself, its permanence endures forever.
Jeremiah likewise calls the moral Law a weak and fragile covenant, but for another reason: because it was immediately broken and annulled through the ingratitude of the people. But since this violation arose from an external defect, it should not properly be attributed to the Law itself. The ceremonies, however, because they were abolished at Christ's coming on account of their own weakness, contained within themselves the cause of their abolition.
Now, this difference between the letter and the Spirit must not be understood as though the Lord had anciently given his Law to the Jews without fruit or benefit, converting no one to himself. Rather, it is stated by way of comparison in order more greatly to magnify the abundance of grace which the Lord was pleased to display through the preaching of the gospel, thereby honoring the reign of his Christ.
For if we consider the multitude which he gathered from various nations through the preaching of his gospel and regenerated by his
Spirit, we shall find that, by comparison, the number of those who received the doctrine of the Law with true affection of heart was so small that there is no comparison. Nevertheless, if we consider the people of Israel by themselves, without comparing them to the Christian Church, there were indeed many true believers among them.
The fourth difference depends upon and arises from the third. For Scripture calls the Old Testament a covenant of bondage because it produces fear and terror in men's hearts, but the New Testament a covenant of liberty because it confirms them in security and confidence.
Saint Paul speaks in this manner in the Epistle to the Romans:
"You have not again received the spirit of bondage unto fear, but the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, 'Abba, Father.'"
—Romans 8:15
This is also what the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews means when he says that believers have not now come to the visible mountain of Sinai, where nothing appeared but fire, thunder, tempest, and lightning, so that the people of Israel saw nothing there which did not cause them horror and terror, and even Moses himself was afraid.
Nor does God speak to them with a terrifying voice as he did then. Rather:
"You have come to the heavenly mountain of Zion and to Jerusalem, the city of the living God, and to the company of angels."
—Hebrews 12:18–24
The statement briefly touched upon in the passage cited from Romans is explained more fully in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Saint Paul makes an allegory from Abraham's two sons.
Hagar, the bondwoman, represents Mount Sinai, where the people of Israel received the Law. Sarah, the free woman, represents Jerusalem, from which the gospel proceeds. Just as Hagar's offspring are enslaved and cannot receive the inheritance, while Sarah's offspring are free and destined to inherit, so the Law can produce nothing in us but bondage, while the gospel alone regenerates us unto liberty.
The sum is this: the Old Testament was given to terrify consciences, while through the New joy and gladness are given to them. The first held consciences bound and confined beneath the yoke of bondage; the second delivers and sets them free.
If anyone objects by appealing to the fathers of the Old Testament, arguing that since they possessed the same Spirit of faith as we do, it follows that they partook of the same liberty and joy, we answer that they obtained neither through the benefit of the Law. Rather, seeing themselves held captive by the Law in bondage and distress of conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel. From this it is evident that their exemption from this misery was a particular fruit of the New Testament.
Furthermore, we deny that they possessed such complete liberty or assurance that they tasted nothing of the fear and bondage produced by the Law. For although they enjoyed the privilege they had obtained through the gospel, they were nevertheless subject, together with the rest of the people, to all the observances, burdens, and bonds which then existed.
Since, then, they were compelled to observe the ceremonies, which were signs of that tutelage which Saint Paul says resembled bondage, and also written acknowledgments by which they confessed themselves guilty before God without discharging their debts, it is rightly said that, in comparison with us, they were under a covenant of bondage, if we consider the order and manner in which the Lord then dealt with the people of Israel.
The last three comparisons concern the Law and the gospel. Therefore, in them we must understand the Law under the name of the Old Testament, just as the gospel is signified by the New Testament. The first comparison we made extended further, for it also embraced the condition of the ancient fathers before the Law. As for Saint Augustine's denial that the promises of that time are included under the Old Testament, his judgment in this matter is sound, and he intended nothing other than what we teach. For he had in view those statements we have cited from Jeremiah and Saint Paul, in which the Old Testament is contrasted with the doctrine of grace and mercy.
He therefore speaks very well when he says that all believers who, from the beginning of the world, were regenerated by God and followed his will in faith and love belong to the New Testament; and
that they fixed their hope not upon fleshly, earthly, and temporal goods, but upon spiritual, heavenly, and eternal ones. Above all, they believed in the Mediator, through whom they did not doubt that the Holy Spirit would be given to them and that they would obtain pardon whenever they sinned. This is what I have sought to maintain: namely, that all the saints whom Scripture tells us were chosen by God from the beginning of the world shared with us the same blessings that are given to us for eternal salvation.
There is only this difference between the distinction I have made and Augustine's: I have sought to distinguish between the clarity of the gospel and the obscurity that preceded it, according to Christ's declaration:
"The Law and the Prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of God began to be preached."
—Luke 16:16
Augustine was content to distinguish between the weakness of the Law and the firmness of the gospel. We must also note concerning the ancient fathers that, although they lived under the Old Testament, they did not rest in it, but always aspired to the New and truly participated in it with sincere affection of heart. For the Apostle condemns as blind and accursed all those who, content with outward shadows, did not raise their understanding to Christ. Indeed, what greater blindness could be imagined than to hope for the expiation of one's sins from the death of a brute beast, or to seek the purification of one's soul in the bodily sprinkling of water, or to desire to appease God by ceremonies of no worth, as though he took great delight in them? And this is to say nothing of many other similar things. All
those, therefore, who occupy themselves with the outward observances of the Law without looking to Christ fall into such absurdity.
The fifth difference, which we said might be added, consists in this: until the coming of Christ, God had set apart one people, to whom he had entrusted the covenant of his grace.
When Almighty God divided the nations, says Moses, when he separated the children of Adam, his people fell to him as his portion; Jacob became his inheritance (Deut. 32). Elsewhere he speaks to the people in this way: "Behold, heaven and earth, and all things contained in them, belong to your God. Nevertheless, he joined himself to your fathers and loved them, choosing their offspring after them out of all the other nations" (Deut. 10).
Our Lord, therefore, bestowed this honor upon that people alone: he made himself known to them as though he belonged more particularly to them than to the others. He entrusted his covenant to them, manifested the presence of his divinity in their midst, and exalted them with every other privilege. But let us pass over the other benefits he bestowed upon them and content ourselves with the one now under consideration: by communicating his Word to them, he joined himself to them so that he might be called and regarded as their God. Meanwhile, he permitted all the other nations to walk in vanity and error, as though they had no acquaintance with him, and he did not give them the remedy by which he might have helped them—namely, the preaching of his Word.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD
AND NEW TESTAMENTS
For this reason, Israel was then called God's beloved son, while all the others were regarded as strangers. Israel was said to be known by God and received under his protection and guardianship, while the others were abandoned in their darkness. Israel was said to be sanctified to God, while the others were profane. Israel was said to be honored by the presence of God, while the others were excluded from it.
But when the fullness of time arrived—the time appointed for the restoration of all things—and when the Mediator between God and man was revealed, he broke down the wall that had for so long confined God's mercy within a single people. He caused peace to be proclaimed to those who were far off as well as to those who were near, so that, being reconciled together to God, they might be united in one body (Eph. 2). Therefore, there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Greek, circumcision and uncircumcision; but Christ is all and in all. To him all the nations of the earth have been given as an inheritance, and the ends of the world as his dominion, so that without distinction he may reign from sea to sea, from east to west.
The calling of the Gentiles is therefore another notable mark by which the excellence of the New Testament over the Old is demonstrated. It had indeed been foretold and attested long before by many prophecies, but in such a way that its fulfillment was reserved for the coming of the Messiah. Even Jesus Christ, at the beginning of his preaching, did not yet open the way to the Gentiles,
but deferred their calling until he had accomplished everything belonging to our redemption and, having passed through the period of his humiliation, had received from the Father the name that is above every name, so that every knee should bow before him (Phil. 2).
This is why he told the Canaanite woman that he had been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15). And when he first sent out his apostles, he forbade them to go beyond those boundaries (Matt. 10), for the appointed time of which we have spoken had not yet arrived.
What is more, although the calling of the Gentiles had been demonstrated by so many testimonies, when the time came for it to begin, it nevertheless seemed so new and strange to the apostles that they regarded it almost as a wonder to be feared. Indeed, they undertook it only with great difficulty, and this is not surprising. For it did not appear reasonable to them that God, who had for so long separated Israel from the other nations, should suddenly remove that distinction, as though he had changed his purpose.
This had certainly been foretold by the prophets. Yet they could not listen so attentively to the prophecies that the novelty of the event did not deeply unsettle them. Nor were the examples God had previously given to indicate what he intended to do sufficient to free them from their doubts. For he had called only a very small number of Gentiles into his Church; and moreover, in calling them, he had incorporated them into the people of Israel through circumcision, so that they became, as it were, members of Abraham's household.
But through the public calling of the Gentiles, which took place after the ascension of Jesus Christ, they were not only raised to the same degree of honor as the Jews, but, what is more, were appointed in their place.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Of the Predestination and Providence of God
The covenant of life is not preached equally throughout the whole world; and even where it is preached, it is not received equally by all. In this diversity there appears a wonderful secret of God's judgment. For there is no doubt that this variety is governed by his good pleasure. Now if it is evident that it is by God's will that salvation is offered to some while others are excluded from it, great and profound questions arise from this which cannot be resolved except by teaching believers what they ought to hold concerning God's election and predestination.
This subject contains two parts. First, we must explain how it is to be understood that some are predestined to salvation and others to damnation. Then we must declare how this world is governed by God's providence, since everything that happens depends upon his ordinance. But before proceeding further in the treatment of this subject, I must address two kinds of people by way of preface.
The discussion of predestination is in itself somewhat obscure, but human curiosity makes it tangled, perplexing, and even dangerous. For the human understanding cannot restrain or confine itself, but wanders through great detours and raises itself far too high, desiring, if it were possible, to leave no secret to God which it has not investigated and examined. Since we see many falling into this audacity and presumption, including several who are otherwise not wicked, we must admonish them how they ought to conduct themselves in this matter.
First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into predestination, they enter the sanctuary of divine wisdom. If anyone thrusts and intrudes himself into it with excessive confidence and boldness, he will never succeed in satisfying his curiosity, but will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no way out. For it is not right that men should scrutinize the things which God has willed to keep hidden and whose knowledge he has reserved to himself. Nor should the height of his wisdom—which he has willed us to adore rather than comprehend, so that he might thereby appear wonderful to us—be subjected to human understanding, as though we could search it out even to eternity.
The secrets of his will which he has judged it good to communicate to us, he has testified to us in his Word. And he has judged it good to communicate everything which he saw to concern us and to be profitable for us. If this conviction once takes root in us—that the Word of God is the only way by which we are to be led in searching out everything that it is lawful to know concerning him, and the only light by which we may behold everything that it is lawful to see—it will easily restrain us and draw us back from all rashness. For we
shall know that once we have passed beyond the bounds of Scripture, we are wandering off the path and into darkness, and therefore can do nothing but stray, stumble, and strike against obstacles at every step.
Above all, therefore, let us keep this before our eyes: that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is given to us in the Word of God is no less madness than attempting to walk across inaccessible rocks or to see in darkness. And let us not be ashamed to remain ignorant of anything in this matter, where there is an ignorance more learned than knowledge. Rather, let us gladly refrain from desiring a knowledge whose pursuit is foolish and dangerous, indeed even deadly. If the curiosity of our understanding presses us, let us always have this saying at hand to restrain it:
"He who searches into the majesty of God shall be overwhelmed by his glory."
—Proverbs 25:27
This should certainly deter us from such audacity, since we see that it can do nothing but cast us headlong into ruin.
On the other hand, there are others who, wishing to remedy this evil, strive almost to bury every mention of predestination. At the very least, they warn us to avoid making any inquiry into it, as though it were a dangerous subject. Although such modesty is praiseworthy insofar as it insists that we approach the mysteries of God only with great sobriety, yet because they go too far in the opposite direction, their counsel does little good for human minds, which are not so easily restrained.
Therefore, in order to keep a proper measure here, we must return to the Word of God, in which we have a sound rule for attaining certain knowledge. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which nothing necessary or profitable for us to know has been omitted, and nothing is taught which is not beneficial for us to learn. We must therefore take care not to hinder believers from investigating what Scripture contains concerning predestination, lest we appear either to deprive them of the good that God has communicated to them or to accuse the Holy Spirit of publishing things that ought to have been suppressed.
Let us therefore permit the Christian to open his ears and understanding to all the doctrine addressed to him by God, provided that he always maintains this restraint: when he sees the sacred mouth of God closed, he must also close to himself the way of further inquiry. This will be the proper boundary of sobriety: as we learn, we must follow God, always keeping him before us; and when he ceases to teach, we must cease from desiring to understand any further.
The danger feared by the well-meaning people of whom we have spoken is not so great that we should therefore cease listening to God in everything he says. I confess that the wicked and blasphemers immediately find in this doctrine of predestination something to criticize, distort, attack, or mock. But if we fear their insolence, we shall have to remain silent concerning the chief articles of our faith, scarcely one of which they do not defile with their blasphemies. A rebellious mind will run no less wildly when it hears that there are three persons in the one essence of God than when it is told that, in creating man, God foresaw what would happen to him. Likewise, these wicked men will not refrain from mockery when they are told
that the world was created little more than six thousand years ago. For they will ask how it is that God's power remained idle for so long.
In order to silence such sacrilegious men, must we cease speaking of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit? Must we remain silent about the creation of the world? On the contrary, the truth of God is so powerful in this matter, as in every other, that it does not fear the slanders of the wicked. Saint Augustine demonstrates this very well in the little book he entitled On the Gift of Perseverance. For we see that the false apostles, though they condemned and defamed Saint Paul's doctrine, could not make him ashamed of it.
Some consider this whole discussion dangerous even among believers, alleging that it undermines exhortation, shakes faith, troubles hearts, and casts them down. But this is a frivolous objection. Saint Augustine does not conceal that he was reproved on these very grounds for preaching predestination too freely. Yet, as he was well able to do, he refuted these charges sufficiently.
As for us, because many different absurdities are alleged against the doctrine we shall present, it will be better to postpone answering each of them until its proper place. For the present, I desire to obtain this agreement from everyone: that we should not search into those things which God has willed to conceal, nor neglect those which he has revealed, lest he condemn us on the one hand for excessive curiosity or, on the other, for ingratitude. For Saint Augustine speaks very well when he says that we may safely follow Scripture, which stoops down to our littleness, like a mother accommodating herself to the weakness of her child when she wishes to teach him to walk.
The ancient writers have explained the terms foreknowledge, predestination, election, and providence in various ways. Leaving aside all superfluous disputes, let us simply follow the proper meaning of the words.
When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have always been and eternally remain before his sight, so that to his knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are present. And they are so present that he does not merely imagine them through certain representations, as things retained in our memory are brought before our eyes by the imagination. Rather, he truly sees and beholds them as though they stood before his face. We say that this foreknowledge extends throughout the whole world and over every creature.
We call predestination God's eternal counsel, by which he determined what he willed to do with each person. For he does not create them all in the same condition, but appoints some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation. Thus, according to the end for which each person is created, we say that he is predestined either to death or to life. Common usage has established the term providence for the order God maintains in governing the world and directing all things.
We shall treat predestination first. According to what Scripture clearly teaches, we say that the Lord once for all determined by his eternal and immutable counsel whom he would receive unto salvation and whom he would leave in ruin. Those whom he calls to salvation, we say, he receives by his free mercy, without any regard whatever to their own worthiness. On the contrary, the entrance into
life is closed to all those whom he wills to deliver over to damnation; and this takes place by his secret and incomprehensible judgment, though that judgment is just and righteous.
Furthermore, we teach that the calling of the elect is a manifestation and testimony of their election. Likewise, their justification is another mark and sign of it, until they enter into glory, in which its fulfillment consists. Now, just as the Lord marks those whom he has chosen by calling and justifying them, so, on the contrary, by depriving the reprobate of the knowledge of his Word or of the sanctification of his Spirit, he shows by this sign what their end will be and what judgment is prepared for them.
I shall pass over here many dreams which various fools have invented to overthrow predestination. I shall confine myself to considering only those arguments which carry weight among learned men, which may raise some scruple among the simple, or which possess some appearance of plausibility by suggesting that God would not be just if our doctrine were true.
What we have said concerning the free election of believers is not without difficulty. For it is commonly believed that the Lord distinguishes among men according to the merits which he foresees in each one. Thus, it is said, he adopts into the number of his children those whose nature he foresees will be such that they are not unworthy of his grace; while, on the contrary, he leaves in perdition those whom he knows will be inclined toward wickedness or ungodliness.
This commonly received opinion is not confined to ordinary people, for in every age it has had distinguished advocates. I freely
acknowledge this, lest anyone suppose that our cause may be greatly harmed if their authority is brought forward against us. For God's truth is so clear in this matter that it cannot be obscured, and so certain that it cannot be shaken by any human authority.
Certainly, when Saint Paul teaches that we were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world, he excludes every consideration of our worthiness. For it is as though he were saying—
Because the heavenly Father found nothing in the entire offspring of Adam worthy of his election, he turned his eyes toward Christ, so that he might choose as members of his body those whom he willed to receive unto life.
Let this principle, therefore, be firmly established among believers: God adopted us in Christ to be his heirs because in ourselves we were incapable of such excellence. Saint Paul also makes this point elsewhere, when he exhorts the Colossians to give thanks to God:
"He has made us fit to share in the inheritance of the saints."
—Colossians 1:12
If God's election precedes the grace by which he makes us fit to obtain the glory of the life to come, what will he find in us that could move him to choose us?
What I maintain will be expressed still more clearly by another statement:
"God chose us before the foundations of the world were laid, according to the good pleasure of his will, that we should be holy, spotless, and blameless before his face."
—Ephesians 1:4–5
He sets God's good pleasure in opposition to every merit that could possibly be alleged, for wherever God's good pleasure reigns, no works come into consideration. It is true that he does not pursue this contrast further in that passage, but we must understand it according to the comparison he explains elsewhere:
"He has called us with his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ from all eternity."
—2 Timothy 1:9
The words he immediately adds—"that we should be holy and spotless"—remove every difficulty. For if we say that he chose us because he foresaw that we would be holy, we reverse Saint Paul's order. We may therefore reason confidently in this way: since he chose us so that we should be holy, it was not because he foresaw that we would become so. For these two propositions are contrary to one another: that believers derive their holiness from election, and that they were chosen because of that holiness.
The sophistry to which they continually resort is of no value here. They say that although God does not grant the grace of election as a reward for preceding merits, he nevertheless bestows it because of future merits. But when it is said that believers were chosen so that
they should be holy, this signifies that all the holiness they were to possess takes its origin and beginning from election. How, then, can that which is produced by election be the cause of election?
Furthermore, the Apostle confirms what he has said still more strongly by adding that God chose us according to the decree of his will, which he had determined within himself. This is equivalent to saying that, in forming this purpose, he considered nothing outside himself to which he had regard. He therefore immediately adds that the whole sum of our election must be directed toward this end: that we should be to the praise of God's grace.
Certainly, God's grace does not deserve to be exalted alone in our election unless that election is free. But it will not be free if, in choosing his own, God takes into account what each person's works will be. Therefore, what Christ said to his disciples applies equally to all believers:
"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you."
—John 15:16
By this he not only excludes every preceding merit, but also signifies that they possessed nothing in themselves for which they ought to have been chosen, unless he had first come to them in his mercy. In the same sense we must understand Saint Paul's declaration:
"Who has first given to him, that it should be repaid to him?"
—Romans 11:35
For he intends to show that God's goodness so completely precedes men that it finds nothing in them, either past or future, which could entitle them to it.
Furthermore, in the Epistle to the Romans, where Saint Paul begins this argument from a higher point and treats it more fully, he sets forth the condition of the elect and the reprobate under the example of Jacob and Esau:
"Before they were born or had done either good or evil, so that God's purpose might stand according to his election, it was said—not on account of works, but on account of him who calls—'The elder shall serve the younger,' as it is written: 'I have hated Esau and loved Jacob.'"
—Romans 9:11–13
What will those who assign any place in our election to works, whether past or future, allege to obscure these words? That would be to overturn entirely what the Apostle says: that the distinction made between the two brothers did not depend upon any consideration of their works, but upon God's pure calling, because God had determined what he would do with them before they were born.
The subtlety employed by the Sophists would not have escaped Saint Paul if it had possessed any foundation. But because he knew that God can foresee nothing good in man except what he has determined to give him by the grace of his election, he rejects the perverse notion that good works precede their own cause and origin. We have the Apostle's express words: the salvation of believers is founded upon
the good pleasure of God's election, and this grace is not acquired for them by any works, but comes to them from his free goodness.
We also have, as it were, a mirror or picture representing this truth to us. Esau and Jacob are brothers, born of the same parents and conceived together in the same womb. Before their birth, everything is equal in the one and the other. Nevertheless, God's judgment distinguishes between them, for he chooses one and rejects the other. Only the right of the firstborn could have caused one to be preferred above the other. Yet even that is disregarded, and what is denied to the elder is given to the younger. Indeed, in many other instances God appears deliberately to have disregarded primogeniture in order to deprive the flesh of every occasion for boasting. Rejecting Ishmael, he set his heart upon Isaac; humbling Manasseh, he preferred Ephraim.
If anyone objects that we must not judge eternal life from these lesser and earthly matters, and that it is absurd to infer that the one exalted to the honor of primogeniture was thereby adopted into the heavenly inheritance—as indeed there are many who do not spare even Saint Paul, but say that he misused the testimonies of Scripture by applying them to this subject—I answer that the Apostle did not speak so thoughtlessly, nor did he pervert the testimonies of Scripture to a foreign meaning. Rather, he perceived what such men are unable to consider: that by an outward sign God intended to represent Jacob's spiritual election, which otherwise remained hidden in his secret counsel.
For unless we refer the primogeniture given to Jacob to the life to come, the blessing he received would be utterly ridiculous, since it
brought him nothing but misery and calamity. Saint Paul therefore saw that by this outward blessing God had testified to the eternal blessing he had prepared for his servant in the heavenly kingdom. He therefore did not hesitate to use Jacob's reception of the birthright as proof that he had been chosen by God.
Jacob, then, is chosen and Esau rejected; and they are distinguished by God's election, though there was no difference between them in merit. If the cause is asked, Saint Paul gives this answer:
"For he said to Moses, 'I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I will show compassion.'"
—Romans 9:15
What does this mean? Certainly, the Lord plainly declares that he finds in us no reason that should move him to do us good, but that he takes the whole reason from his own mercy, because the salvation of his people is his own work. Since God establishes your salvation in himself alone, why will you descend to yourself? Since he assigns his mercy alone as the entire cause, why will you turn aside to your merits? Since he wills to confine your whole thought to his goodness alone, why will you divert any part of it to the consideration of your works?
But someone will tell me that Saint Ambrose, Jerome, and Origen wrote that God distributes his grace among men according to his foreknowledge of how well each one will use it. I concede still more: Saint Augustine was once of the same opinion.
But after making greater progress in the knowledge of Scripture, he not only retracted this opinion as false but vigorously refuted it. Indeed, in reproving the Pelagians for persisting in this error, he spoke as follows: "Who would not marvel that so great a subtlety escaped the Apostle? For after setting forth the remarkable case of Esau and Jacob, and raising the question,
'What then? Is there unrighteousness with God?'
—Romans 9:14
he ought to have answered that God had foreseen the merits of each, if he had wished to settle the matter briefly. Yet he does not say this, but refers everything to God's judgment and mercy."
Let Saint Augustine's testimony carry some weight with those who willingly defer to the authority of the Fathers. But let us suppose that he had said nothing, and consider the matter itself. Saint Paul had raised a very difficult question: whether God acts justly in granting grace only to those whom he pleases. He could have resolved it in a single word by alleging that God considers men's works. Why, then, did he not do so? Why does he continue his argument in such a way that he leaves us facing the same difficulty? There is no other reason than that he ought not to answer in that way, for the Holy Spirit, who spoke through his mouth, omitted nothing.
He therefore answers without evasion that God graciously receives his elect because it pleases him, and that he shows them mercy because it pleases him. For the testimony of Moses which he cites—
"I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I will show compassion"
—Romans 9:15
—is equivalent to saying that God is moved to pity and goodness by no other cause than his own will.
Therefore, what Saint Augustine says elsewhere remains true: God's grace does not find those whom it ought to choose, but makes them such. I have no regard for Thomas Aquinas's subtle distinction: that although the foreknowledge of merits cannot be called the cause of predestination on God's part, it may nevertheless be so called on our part. Thus, he says, God predestined his elect to receive glory because of their merits, since he willed to give them the grace by which they might merit that glory.
On the contrary, since God does not will us to consider anything in our election except his pure goodness, it is a perverse ambition to seek anything further. If I wished to contend by subtle reasoning, I would have ample means to refute Thomas's sophistry. He argues that glory is in some sense ordained beforehand for the elect because of their merits, since God first gives them the grace by which they may merit it. But what if I reply that the grace of the Holy Spirit, which our Lord gives to his people, serves their election and follows it rather than precedes it, since it is bestowed upon those to whom the inheritance of life had already been assigned? For this is the order God observes: after choosing them, he justifies them. It will therefore follow that God's predestination, by which he determines to call his people to salvation, is the cause of his determination to justify them, rather than the reverse.
But let us leave aside all such disputes as superfluous among those who consider the wisdom contained in God's Word sufficient. For an ancient teacher spoke very well when he said that those who assign the cause of election to merits desire to know more than it is profitable to know.
Let us now treat of the reprobate, of whom Saint Paul also speaks in this same passage. For just as Jacob, having merited nothing by his good works, is received into grace, so Esau, having committed no offense, is rejected by God. If we direct our thoughts to works, we do injury to the Apostle, as though he had failed to see what is obvious to us. Yet it is evident that he did not consider works, since he expressly insists that, although the two had done neither good nor evil, one was chosen and the other rejected. From this he concludes that the foundation of predestination does not lie in works.
Furthermore, when he raises the question whether God is unjust, he does not allege that God dealt with Esau according to his wickedness —which would have been the clearest and surest defense of God's righteousness—but gives an entirely different answer: that God raises up the reprobate in order to exalt his glory in them. Finally, he adds by way of conclusion:
"God has mercy upon whom he wills, and hardens whom he wills."
—Romans 9:18
We see how he refers both to the good pleasure of God. If, therefore, we can assign no other reason why God receives his elect except that it pleases him, neither shall we have any reason why he rejects the
others except his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy according to his pleasure, this is intended to admonish us not to seek any cause beyond his will.
Now when the human understanding hears these things, its intemperance cannot refrain from stirring up disturbances and commotions, as though a trumpet had sounded the charge. For carnal men, filled as they are with folly, bring suit against God as though he were subject to their censure. First they ask why God is angry with his creatures when they have not provoked him by any offense. For, they say, to destroy and ruin whomever he pleases is more characteristic of a tyrant's cruelty than of a judge's righteousness. Thus they imagine that men have good reason to complain against God if, by his mere will and without regard to their own merit, they are predestined to eternal death.
If such thoughts ever enter the minds of believers, they will be sufficiently armed to repel them if they consider only what rashness it is even to inquire into the causes of God's will, since his will is— and rightly ought to be—the cause of everything that is done. For if it has some cause, that cause must precede it and must, as it were, govern it, which it is unlawful to imagine. For God's will is so completely the supreme and sovereign rule of righteousness that whatever he wills must be held as righteous simply because he wills it.
Therefore, when it is asked why God has acted in this way, we must answer: because he willed it. If anyone proceeds further and asks why he willed it, he is asking for something greater and higher than the will of God, which cannot be found. Let human rashness
therefore restrain itself and cease seeking what does not exist, lest it fail to find what does exist. This bridle will be sufficient to restrain all who are willing to contemplate the secrets of God with reverence.
Against the wicked, who do not hesitate openly to slander God, the Lord will sufficiently defend himself by his own righteousness, without our serving as his advocates. For when he strips their consciences of every evasion, he will press and convict them so thoroughly that they will be unable to escape. Nevertheless, so that we may not tolerate their mockery of his holy name, he provides us in his Word with armor to resist their fury.
Therefore, if anyone attacks us by asking why God predestined some to damnation when they had not yet merited it, since they did not yet exist, we shall ask him in return what he thinks God owes to man if man is considered in his natural condition. Since we are all corrupted and defiled by sin, it is impossible for God not to hate us—not with tyrannical cruelty, but according to righteous justice. If all men, by their natural condition, are guilty of mortal condemnation, of what injustice, I ask, will those complain whom God has predestined to death? Let all the children of Adam come forward to contend and dispute with their Creator because, by his eternal providence and before their birth, they were consigned to perpetual misery.
But when God brings them to a true knowledge of themselves, what will they be able to murmur against this? If they are all taken from a corrupted mass, it is no wonder that they are subject to damnation. Let them not therefore accuse God of injustice because by his eternal judgment they are appointed to the condemnation toward which their own nature leads them.
But someone will ask whether they were not predestined by God's ordinance to this corruption, which we say is the cause of their ruin. For if this is so, when they perish in their corruption, they are merely bearing the misery into which Adam fell by God's will and into which he cast all his descendants. Will God not therefore be unjust for thus making cruel sport of his creatures?
In reply, I confess that it was by God's will that all the children of Adam fell into this misery in which they are now held. This is what I said at the beginning: we must always return to the sole pleasure of God, the reason for which he keeps hidden within himself. But it does not follow that God may therefore be slandered. For with Saint Paul we shall answer in this manner:
"O man, who are you to contend with God? Does the vessel say to the potter who made it, 'Why have you formed me in this way?' Does not the potter have authority to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"
—Romans 9:20–21
They will deny that God's righteousness is properly defended in this way, and will say that it is merely the sort of evasion commonly sought by those who lack a sufficient excuse. For it may seem that nothing more is being said than that God's power cannot be prevented from doing whatever pleases him. But I say that the matter is entirely different.
For what argument could be firmer or more solid than to admonish us to consider who God is? How could he who is Judge of the world
commit any injustice? If it is proper to his nature to execute righteousness, then he naturally loves that righteousness and hates all iniquity. The Apostle therefore did not seek some hiding place, as though he had been driven into a corner. Rather, he intended to show that God's righteousness is too high and excellent to be reduced to the measure of man or comprehended by the narrowness of the human understanding.
He readily confesses that God's judgments possess a depth capable of swallowing up the minds of the whole world if they attempt to penetrate it. But would it not be utterly unreasonable to subject God's works to the condition that whenever we cannot understand their reason, we may dare to condemn them?
Let some Manichean, Coelestian, or other heretic come forward to slander God's providence. I answer with Saint Paul that there is no need to give a full account of it, since by its greatness it entirely surpasses our understanding. What absurdity is there in this? Would they have God's power so restricted that he could do nothing beyond what our minds are capable of comprehending?
I say with Saint Augustine that God created some whom he foresaw would go into eternal perdition, and that this was done because he willed it.
Why he willed it is not for us to demand, since we cannot comprehend the reason. Nor is it fitting for us to dispute whether God's will is just, for whenever it is mentioned, we must understand by it an infallible rule of righteousness. Why, then, should anyone question whether there is unrighteousness where righteousness plainly appears?
Let us therefore not be ashamed to silence the wicked in Saint Paul's manner. Whenever they dare to bark like dogs, let us answer them: Who are you, miserable creatures, to bring an accusation against God merely because he has not lowered the greatness of his works to the level of your dullness? Do you imagine that what he does is unjust simply because its reason is hidden from us?
We shall gain nothing by going further, for we shall never satisfy their insolence. Moreover, God requires no other defense than that which he has employed by his Spirit, speaking through the mouth of Saint Paul. Indeed, we forget how to speak rightly whenever we do not speak according to God.
There is another objection raised by ungodliness, which aims not so much to condemn God as to excuse the sinner—although, in truth, the sinner cannot justify himself without bringing dishonor upon the Judge. Nevertheless, let us see what it is. Why, they ask, would God impute as sin to men those things which he has made necessary for them by his predestination? What could they do? Could they resist his decrees? That would be in vain; indeed, they are altogether unable to do so. Therefore, they say, God does not justly punish those things whose chief cause lies in his predestination.
I shall not employ here the defense commonly advanced by the teachers of the Church: that God's foreknowledge does not prevent man from being regarded as a sinner, since it is man's sins that God foresees, not his own. For the cavillers would not be satisfied with this, but would press further, saying that God could have prevented the evils he foresaw if he had wished. Since he did not do so, they would argue that he deliberately created man to conduct himself in
this manner. And if man was created under the condition that he should afterward do everything he does, then he cannot be blamed for things which he cannot avoid and to which he is bound by God's will.
Let us therefore consider how this difficulty may be resolved. First, we must all hold as settled what Solomon says:
"The Lord has made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of destruction."
—Proverbs 16:4
Since the ordering of all things is in God's hand, and he can appoint life or death according to his pleasure, he disposes and ordains by his counsel that some should be certainly destined from their mother's womb to eternal death, in order that he may glorify his name in their destruction.
If anyone, wishing to excuse God, alleges that by his providence he imposes no necessity upon them, but creates them in this condition because he foresees what their perversity will be, such a person will say something true, but not the whole truth. The ancient teachers sometimes employed this solution, though rather hesitantly. The theologians of the Sorbonne rest entirely upon it, as though nothing could be raised against it.
For my part, I readily concede that foreknowledge alone imposes no necessity upon creatures, though not everyone will grant this, for some make it the cause of all things. But Lorenzo Valla appears to me to have drawn a subtler distinction. He shows that this dispute is
vain because life and death are acts of God's will rather than of his providence. If God merely foresaw what happens to men without disposing and ordaining it according to his good pleasure, then it would not be pointless to debate what necessity God's providence imposes. But since he foresees things for no other reason than that he has determined they should happen, it is foolish to dispute what his foreknowledge accomplishes when it is evident that everything comes to pass by his ordinance and disposition.
It cannot therefore be denied that before creating man, God foresaw the end to which he would come, and that he foresaw it because he had so ordained it in his counsel. If anyone here accuses God's foreknowledge, he does so rashly. For why should God be blamed for not being ignorant of the things that were to come? If there is any complaint, whether just or merely plausible, it must be directed rather against his providence.
What I say ought not to appear strange: God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in it the ruin of all his posterity, but also willed it to be so. For just as it belongs to his wisdom to possess foreknowledge of all future things, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern everything by his hand.
Some resort here to the distinction between will and permission, saying that the wicked perish by God's permission, but not by his will. Yet why should we say that he permits it except because he wills it? Nor is it even plausible in itself that man brought condemnation upon himself by God's mere permission rather than by his ordinance, as though God had not ordained what condition he willed for the chief and noblest of his creatures.
I therefore do not hesitate simply to confess with Saint Augustine that the will of God is the necessity of all things, and that whatever he has ordained and willed must necessarily come to pass, just as everything he has foreseen will certainly occur.
Now if the Pelagians, Manicheans, Anabaptists, or Epicureans—for in treating this matter we have to contend with these four sects— allege in their defense the necessity imposed upon them by God's predestination, they bring forward nothing relevant to their case. For if predestination is nothing other than the ordering and administration of divine justice, which remains blameless although it is hidden, then, since it is certain that they were not undeserving of being predestined to such an end, it is equally certain that the ruin into which they fall by God's predestination is just and righteous.
Furthermore, their destruction proceeds from God's predestination in such a way that its cause and substance will be found in themselves. The first man fell because God had judged it expedient. Why he so judged, we know nothing. Nevertheless, it is certain that he judged it so only because he saw that it served the glory of his name. And whenever God's glory is mentioned, let us also think of his righteousness, for whatever deserves praise must be righteous.