De causa Dei: Book II, Chapter 5
Thomas Bradwardine, De causa Dei contra Pelagium (1344). English translation: Wroot Press, CC BY-NC 4.0; machine-learning use permitted with attribution (https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/rights/).
Source: Henry Savile's edition, London 1618, 477C–489C; Latin from EEBO-TCP A16626 (public domain).
Canonical: https://bradwardine.wrootpress.com/2/5/
Status: draft translation, not yet reviewed.

[477C]
CHAPTER V.

That free choice, however much it is propped up by created grace, cannot overcome any temptation without some other special help of God.

[477C–478C]
After these matters, what is more fitting than to show that free choice, however much it is propped up by created grace, cannot overcome any temptation without some special help of God? The matters just set out show this plainly. It is also clearly evident from the 41st Corollary of the first book.

Furthermore, otherwise a wayfarer who is finally reprobate, yet at present in grace of whatever degree, could by himself, without any other help of God, overcome any temptation to mortal sin, or some definite temptation, given that if he did so he would die in grace and be predestined to life. And so someone reprobate to death could be predestined to life by his works. Indeed even a reprobate could make himself predestined to life, against the 43rd of the first book.

Here I once heard a certain man reply by saying that no one can make himself predestined, but someone can make it that he is predestined, that is, according to him, can do something which, having been done, will leave him predestined to life. But this reply errs in two ways. First, in that it tries to separate what cannot be separated, namely that someone make himself predestined and that he make it that he is predestined. For if he makes it that he is predestined, this is by some merit which is the total cause, or at least a partial efficient cause, of his being predestined, namely because by that merit he moves and rouses God to predestine him. Therefore that merit is likewise an efficient cause, moving and rousing toward his being predestined; therefore it likewise makes him predestined; therefore he likewise makes himself predestined.

It errs, secondly, by saying that someone can make it that he is predestined, that is, according to the same man, can do something which, having been done, will leave him predestined. For that ablative "which having been done" [n1] signifies there either the cause of predestination, or the order of prior to posterior, or neither cause nor order but something disparate. If cause, then his deed is the cause of divine predestination, against the 43rd of the first book. If order, then after that deed he is predestined and was not before; therefore predestination is temporal and of a day, not eternal, against the 42nd chapter of the first book. If something disparate, then by the same reasoning a dog can make it that someone is predestined; for a dog can do something, such as bark, which having been done a man will be predestined, as he was eternally before.

Here he replied further, saying that the prior division was insufficient, and he added a fourth member, namely that that ablative signifies there the effect of predestination; and in this way he expounded his statement: someone can make it that he is predestined, because he can do something [n2] which having been done he himself will be predestined; that is, which having been done, it follows, as from effect to cause and from the posterior to the prior, that he is predestined. Consequently, then, in speaking thus he must concede that he can make God exist, or that God is, and make the world exist, or that the world is. For he can do something which having been done it follows, as from effect to cause and from the posterior to the prior, that God or the world exists, or that God is or the world is. By the same reasoning he would also have to concede that he can make himself predestined, because he can make its effect.

But if it is said that that ablative is absolute and can be expounded in three ways, namely by "if," "because," or "while," so that the foregoing argument does not go through, this is easily excluded. For if it is expounded by "if," then by the same reasoning he must concede that he can make God exist, or that God is. For if he does anything, it follows that God exists, and that God is; and so every later effect makes its prior cause exist, for if that effect is, that cause is. If it is expounded by "because," it follows that his work is the cause of his predestination, against the 43rd of the first book. If it is expounded by "while," then by the same reasoning a dog can make it that someone is predestined; for it can bark, and while it barks someone is predestined; and so anything that acts makes itself exist, and anything else; for it does something, and while it does that, it itself exists, and anything else.

Likewise, if someone can make it that he is predestined, let him do so. Then that making is naturally prior to his being predestined, because every making naturally precedes its made thing; which is false, because whoever now is, or afterwards will be, predestined was previously predestined from eternity, as the 42nd of the first taught. Likewise, every making is a change from contradictory to contradictory, namely from not made to made; for otherwise the maker would make what was already made, and the made would at once be in the term from which and in the term to which, and so to move would be pointless. This is also evident from the Philosopher, Physics 5, 7 and following, and 6, 32, and from Averroes in the Commentary [n3]. Therefore whoever makes it that he is predestined was previously not predestined and now is predestined, against the chapter cited.

Likewise, if someone could overcome a strong temptation by his own powers, he could likewise increase his merit (for that is of far greater difficulty), against the 44th of the first. Likewise, since overcoming temptation is meritorious, a tempted man could, by multiplied victories through his own powers, without God's help, likewise multiply his merit and his virtues, and acquire for himself a reward beyond the limit divinely fixed for him, against the 44th of the first.

[478D–479B]
Likewise, if a reprobate who is in grace [n4] and tempted could by himself overcome a temptation to mortal sin, he could by himself die in grace and be saved; hence he could by himself increase the number of the elect, or exchange the units of that number, which is against what was established in the 46th of the first. Here perhaps Lombard would reply, as he replies in Sentences 1, distinction 40, in these words: "We reply that it was said on this ground, and it is true, that the number of the elect cannot be increased or diminished, because both cannot be at once, namely that someone is saved and is not predestined, or is predestined and is damned."

But this exposition or gloss is too far removed from the text. For when Holy Scripture and the holy Doctors say that the number of such and such cannot be increased or diminished, they understand it as the Philosophers and Logicians do, and as the professors of the other arts do, and as the community of men always customarily understands it. That is, to the number of such and such no further unit of that kind can be added, nor taken away; not that some unit of it is at once such and not such. The Lord himself seems to have understood it so in Genesis 17, when he said, "And as for Ishmael also, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and I will increase and multiply him exceedingly." He wished nothing else to be understood than that Ishmael would beget some number of men, which he would increase by adding many like units, not that someone would be at once an Ishmaelite and not an Ishmaelite. Hence he immediately adds, "He will beget twelve chiefs, and I will make him into a great nation"; and Exodus 23, "Little by little I will drive them out from your sight, until you increase and possess the land"; and 1 Paralipomenon 21, "May the Lord increase his people a hundredfold of what they are"; and Psalm 104, "He increased his people exceedingly"; and Acts 5, "the multitude of believers was increased." In these nothing else is given to be understood than that to the number or multitude of believers other like units were added, namely of believers; not that someone is at once faithful and not believing, or believing and not faithful.

Indeed, according to that reply it follows that the multitude of believers cannot be increased or diminished, because both cannot be at once, namely that someone is faithful and not believing, or believing and not faithful. It follows further that the number of the living and the dead, or of virgins and corrupted women, cannot be increased or diminished; for no one can be at once living and dead, nor any woman at once virgin and corrupted; and so in all like cases. Hence he must consequently say that the number of nothing can be increased or diminished, by like reasoning.

Likewise, as he himself says in the same place, in these and similar expressions the meaning of the utterance is to be judged from the reason for what is said. Now the reason for the saying of Augustine in On Rebuke and Grace 61, namely, "So certain is the number of the predestined that no one is added to it, nor taken from them"; and further on, in the same place, "The number of the elect is certain"; is this: that another will not receive the crown unless this one has lost his, according to Revelation 3, "Hold what you have, so that no one else may take your crown"; which saying, with its reason, Lombard reports there. Since this, then, is Augustine's reason, "No one outside the number of the elect will receive a crown unless someone of the number of the elect has lost his; therefore the number of the elect is certain," he understands nothing else in his reason than that if any of the elect loses his crown, another will be put in his place and will receive that crown, not that he is at once reprobate and predestined, or to be saved and not predestined, or predestined and not to be saved. Therefore the conclusion is to be understood likewise: namely, that the number of the elect is certain, not to be increased in such a way that some unit is added unless another is taken away, nor to be diminished in such a way that some unit is taken away unless another is added; not, however, that it cannot be increased or diminished in such a way that someone would be at once predestined and reprobate.

The same reasoning seems to apply to the saying of Job 34, "He will crush many and countless, and will make others stand in their place," and to the saying of blessed Gregory on it, as the 44th of the first reported; so that the meaning of the utterance is also the same. Moreover, if Augustine understood it in the way stated, what useful or unknown thing would he be teaching? For no Catholic,

[479C–479E]
indeed no heretic either, who knew the meaning of the words, ever doubted whether someone would be at once saved and not predestined, or the reverse. Nor do these words, "the number of the elect is certain" and "it cannot be increased or diminished," commonly signify, now, in the way stated; they signify rather that to the number of the elect no unit can be added, nor taken away. Wherefore in Christian doctrine they ought to be taken in this way, as the 43rd of the first teaches.

Likewise, that reply of Lombard treats as the same the number of the elect being able to be increased or diminished and the predestined being able to be damned or the reprobate saved, as is clear to those who are willing to read that passage; yet these in truth are not the same. For one can easily imagine that A, who is predestined, could be damned, and B, who is reprobate, could be saved, without the number of the elect, or even of the reprobate, being able to be increased or diminished. This would be by A's losing his crown and B's receiving it, according to the saying of the Angel in Revelation 3, and by A's being crushed and B's being set up in his place, according to the saying of Job 34. Just so it is not the same thing that the number of signs above the horizon can be increased or diminished, and that some sign above the horizon can set or some sign below the horizon rise. Such a setting or rising is possible, indeed even necessary; but increase or decrease of the signs above the horizon is impossible. For there are always necessarily just six signs above the horizon, and necessarily just the other six below it, as is demonstrated in other books, and always as one sets another rises, and conversely.

Likewise, that reply does not dispose of the argument. For one marked as reprobate can by himself overcome a temptation to mortal sin, and die in grace; he can do this with no predestined person falling or about to fall. Therefore, according to the common manner of speaking of Holy Scripture and of the aforesaid Doctors, he can increase the number of the elect, against what was cited from the 44th of the first. For suppose that the number of the elect fixed by God is seven, and that a little before the final judgment there are at least six; and let there be A and B, two wayfarers in grace, A predestined and B reprobate, and no more of them, and let them be tempted alike. If then B could, by his grace and by himself, without any other help of God, finally overcome every temptation to mortal sin, and does so, A is not on that account forced to sin finally and unto death; indeed he can likewise overcome, and if he does, the number of the elect will be eight. Therefore B can increase the number of the elect.

To the same point it can be argued more expressly, if it is supposed that a little before the judgment the number of the elect is complete, and that A, a wayfarer in grace, a reprobate, is tempted, etc., as before. And if anyone concedes that the number of the elect can be increased or diminished in the manner stated, he has against him what was cited above from the 44th of the first.

Likewise, if it can be increased, suppose it brought into being: then the number of the elect is increased, therefore it was previously smaller than it now is, which is false, because however great it now is, so great was it from eternity fixed and predestined by God to be, as the 23rd and 42nd of the first taught. Likewise, if the number of the elect and predestined is increased, this is by the addition of some unit, which we call A; therefore A is now of that number and was not before; therefore A is now elect and

[480A–480C]
predestined, and was not before, against the chapters recalled.

Wherefore perhaps someone will reply more subtly, saying that the number of the elect cannot be increased or diminished, but can be greater or smaller than it was before, or is now, though the one seems to entail the opposite of the other, and conversely. It also seems that if such a number could be greater, it could become greater through the addition [n5] of some unit, etc., as before.

Likewise, then someone, say B, who is not predestined, could be predestined with all the others remaining predestined, as before, against Revelation 3, "Hold what you have, so that no one else may take your crown." There it is expressly signified, according to the exposition of Augustine and of Gregory as recited, that another will not receive the crown of election or of divine predestination unless this one or another like him has lost his. And by like reasoning someone like A, who is predestined, could be reprobated with all the reprobate remaining, as before; against Job 34, "He will crush many and countless, and will make others stand in their place," and against blessed Gregory on that text.

Likewise, then the number of the elect could be greater or smaller, perfect or imperfect, abundant or diminished, against the reasoning of Anselm and Augustine recited in the 44th of the first. Likewise, then the number of the elect could be greater or smaller, as in nearly every kind of number, at least of finite number; therefore it is not defined and certain in any other way than by being finite. Why then do Holy Scripture and the doctors labor so vainly to show that that number is defined and certain, if they understand nothing else than that it is finite, and not precisely so great or so great? For this is doubtful to no one, nor useful to know, and so neither to teach, as the 43rd of the first teaches.

Why also did Augustine, that most subtle weigher of words, say, "So certain is the number of the predestined that no one is added to them nor taken from them," if he wished nothing else to be understood than that the number of the predestined is so certain that no one is in fact added to them or taken from them, as is the case with every other number of any things numbered whatever? For whatever things are numbered are contained under some certain number, so that nothing like them is in fact added to them nor taken from them, because they would then be in another number, not in that one. To what end, then, did he teach so carefully, and prove so zealously through passages of Scripture, that this is so specifically for the number of the elect, when it is generally true of any number of whatever things, and well enough known from the terms alone, without authority of Scripture or any other proof?

Likewise, then the number of the elect would depend on the wills of men, namely on their future merits, good or bad. But according to those who hold that a man can by himself, without God, overcome temptation and elicit a good willing, such wills of men are simply contingent to either alternative, and wholly casual with respect to God, because they happen outside his purpose; and what comes from a contingent or casual thing is likewise contingent or casual, as is clear from the 29th of the first. Therefore the number of the elect is contingent to either alternative and casual; therefore it is not defined and certain, against what was cited above. Likewise, according to that, the number of the elect would not be preordained by God, but left to the contingent wills of men, to chance and fortune, against what was cited above, and

[480D–481A]
especially against Wisdom 11, "You have arranged all things in measure, number and weight." For on what has been granted, men do more to arrange the elect and predestined in number than God himself does. Antecedently and causally, because men dispose their wills in this way or that, therefore God, subserviently and as under-executor [n6], disposes the number of the elect to be so much or so much.

Likewise, if a man could by himself overcome any temptation without God, it would be vain to pray to God to overcome some temptation, and vain to give thanks to the Lord our God for victory over temptation, as the 44th and 31st of the first teach. Whoever concedes this is to be held by all as not only vain but even a profane heretic, since even that pagan, the Philosopher, in the Secret of Secrets, part 1, 1, for Alexander, prays thus: "May the Lord guard you from every dishonorable deed" [n7]. And the whole Christian Church, according to the teaching of its head, Christ, prays to its Father who is in heaven not in vain but soundly, "Lead us not into temptation," as is clear in Matthew 6 and Luke 11. And the same Master commanded his disciples, saying, "Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation," Mark 14 and Luke 22. And if anyone is not ashamed to pretend that the texts cited are to be understood of great temptations, and that a man can overcome small ones by himself, he is refuted by the Philosopher in the place cited before.

Why also did Christ not teach us to pray thus, "Lead us not into great temptation," but simply, "Lead us not into temptation," unless because he wished this to be understood of every temptation? And who is so presumptuous and foolish as to accuse of folly in prayer one who would pray the heavenly Father not to lead him into any temptation at all, great or small, when the whole Church prays thus for itself: "Deliver us from all evil, Lord"; and again, "Grant, we beseech you, almighty God, that we may merit the Holy Spirit by assiduous prayers, so that by his grace we may be freed from all temptations"; and again, "With you as leader going before, may we avoid everything harmful"; and again, "Almighty and merciful God, graciously drive away all things that oppose us," with many like texts in many places?

And this is what the Apostle faithfully professes in Romans 8, "Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or distress? or persecution? or hunger? or nakedness? or danger? or the sword? As it is written, For your sake we are put to death all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter; but in all these things we overcome on account of him who loved us." He does not say "in some," but "in all these we overcome"; and this, as the Gloss says, not on account of ourselves but on account of him who loved us. Augustine, however, in On Grace and Free Choice 17 and 37, and Prosper, Against Cassian 21 [n8], cite the same authority to prove the same conclusion, not with this preposition ("on account of," propter) but ("through," per): "But in all these things we over-conquer," says Augustine; "we overcome," says Prosper; and both, "through him who loved us." Who, moreover, is so ungrateful as not to give thanks to God when he has won a trial? [n9]

[481B–481C]
And if anyone is such, let him hear the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15, saying thus, "But thanks be to God, who has given us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ"; and in 2 Corinthians 2, "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ Jesus." Let him hear also the Psalmist, in Psalm 65 [66], saying, "Bless our God, you nations, and make the voice of his praise heard, who has set my soul in life, and has not let my feet be moved"; that is, my affections and my loves. This accords with that well-known saying of Augustine, "My foot is my love; by it I am borne wherever I am borne" [n10]. Augustine also says, in On the Freedom of Choice, to Hilary 4, "The mind is borne, as by weight, by love, wherever it is borne"; and in City of God 11, 28, "As the body by weight, so the mind by love, is borne wherever it is borne." Here the Psalmist blesses the Lord both because he set his soul from the death of guilt into the life of grace, and because he did not allow it to be moved from grace toward guilt through any affections or loves.

Let them hear also the Maccabees, who in hymns and confessions blessed the Lord who had done great things in Israel and given them victory, 2 Maccabees 10. Let such a man, I say, hear, and give thanks to the Lord for spiritual victory no less gratefully than they gave thanks for bodily victory.

Moreover, bodily strength stands to bodily victory, and spiritual strength, namely grace, to spiritual victory, in like proportion. But from bodily strength alone, without God's helping, bodily victory does not come, as the 31st of the first proves; therefore neither could spiritual victory come from spiritual strength or grace without God's helping. Hence also in 1 Kings [1 Samuel] 2 it is written thus, "He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall fall silent in darkness, because not by his own strength shall a man be made strong"; and Psalm 32 [33], "A king is not saved by great power, and a giant will not be saved by the greatness of his strength: a horse is a deceptive hope for safety, and by the abundance of his strength he will not be saved." In what, then, is he saved? In what follows: "Behold, the eyes of the Lord are upon those who fear him, and upon those who hope in his mercy." To what effect? To that which follows, "to deliver their souls from death, and to feed them in famine." Let all Catholics, then, say, and say truly, with heart and mouth, the following verse;

[481D–481E]
"Our soul waits for the Lord, for he is our helper and protector," so that there is no one of whom it could truly be said, "Behold the man who did not make God his helper, but hoped in the multitude of his riches," that is, in the multitude or greatness of his powers; Psalm 51 [52]. Nor let there be any who say to God with the wicked, "Depart from us," Job 21; but let each say with the Psalmist, "Be my helper, Lord; do not forsake me," Psalm 26 [27].

Hence Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace 3: "No one can be free in the good unless he has been set free by him who said, If the Son has set you free, you will be truly free. Nor is it so that when anyone has been set free from the condemnation of sin he no longer needs the help of his liberator; rather, hearing from him, Without me you can do nothing, he should himself say to him, Be my helper, do not forsake me." The same, On the Perfection of Human Righteousness 33: It is said to God, "Be my helper, do not forsake me." This is surely not for seizing bodily things and guarding against evils, but for carrying out and perfecting righteousness; on account of which we say, "Do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

"Nor is anyone helped unless he too does something; but he is helped if he invokes, if he believes, if he has been called according to purpose. We run, therefore, when we advance, while our health runs in those who advance, so that, perfected on every side, we may be wholly without any weakness of sin. God not only wills this, but even makes it happen so that it may be fulfilled, and helps. And the grace of God does this with us through Jesus Christ our Lord, not only by precepts, sacraments, and examples, but also by the Holy Spirit, through whom charity is secretly poured out in our hearts." And above, in the same work, 21, he shows how God's precepts are heavy and how light, and says that they are heavy to one who fears, light to one who loves. Hence he says thus: "They labor in God's precepts who strive to fulfil them through fear; but perfect charity casts out fear, and makes the burden of the precept light, not only not pressing with the weight of a load, but even lifting like the wings of feathers. And yet that charity, in order that it be had even as great as can be had in the body

[482A–482C]
of this death, the choice of our will is slight unless the grace of God helps through Jesus Christ our Lord. For it is poured out in our hearts, as must often be said, not through ourselves but through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." For he who says, "Let my heart be undefiled," and "Direct my paths according to your word, and let no injustice have dominion over me," and "Your will be done as in heaven so on earth," and "Do not bring us into temptation," etc., and the like, surely prays this in order that he may do God's precepts. They would neither be commanded to be done if our will did nothing there, nor would prayer be made for them if the will alone sufficed.

And in chapter 22, they ought to be reminded [n11] that God's commandment is not heavy to the love of God, which is poured out in our hearts only through the Spirit, not through the choice of the human will, by giving more to which than is right they are ignorant of the justice of God. However much charity, then, is had, free choice does not suffice for doing the precepts of God, which forbid all illicit concupiscence and prohibit consent to every wicked temptation; it still needs the help of the Holy Spirit, through whom charity may be poured out in him for doing such things.

The Gloss also on that text of Psalm 32 [33], "A king is not saved by great power," etc., speaks thus: "He treats of spiritual things. For as he said above how men are made just, namely by God through grace, so here he says that after they are made they are helped by the same and kept in the good, as though thus they are made just; but neither once made are they saved by their own power, because the king is not saved," etc.

The same could be shown by the 42nd chapter of the first book, where it is taught that grace or charity does nothing except insofar as it is directed by the Holy Spirit in acting. Hence Augustine, Against Julian 5, 3: "When," he says, "by God's gift one lives by true faith, God himself is present both to the mind to be enlightened, and to concupiscence to be overcome, and to hardship to be endured."

Likewise, if one endowed with grace could resist every temptation, this would be either by the help of grace or by his free choice alone. If by the help of grace, this would be because grace did something in that resistance, or moved, or strengthened the one tempted, or preserved his strength; and whichever of these grace does, it does not do this alone but God through it, as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 42nd chapters of the first teach. If by his free choice alone, then grace is given him in vain for doing this, unless it is said that through grace he does it more easily, which was rejected above. Indeed, it then follows that a man without grace, or any other help of God whatever, can by his free choice alone resist every temptation and vigorously overcome it, which has been condemned above.

Likewise, someone having little charity cannot, through it, overcome temptation without another special help of God, as Augustine says in On Grace and Free Choice 36: "He who wishes to do God's commandment, and cannot, already has indeed a good will, but still small and weak; but he will be able to when he has a great and strong one. For when the Martyrs did those great commandments, they did them with a great will, that is, with great charity; of which charity the Lord himself says, Greater love than this no one has, than to lay down his life for his friends." That same charity the Apostle . . .

[482D–483B]
…Peter did not yet have, when out of fear he denied the Lord three times. "For fear is not in charity," as John the Evangelist says in his Epistle, "but perfect charity casts out fear." And yet, though small and imperfect, it was not lacking when he said to the Lord, "I will lay down my life for you," for he thought he could do what he felt he wished. Again, however much grace one may have, one still always needs God's help lest one sin. Hence Augustine says in On Nature and Grace 26: "When a human physician has restored a man to health, he henceforth leaves him to God to be sustained by the elements and bodily food. But God himself, when he spiritually heals the sick or the dead, that is, justifies the ungodly, and has brought him to perfect health, that is, to perfect life and justice, does not forsake him, provided he is not forsaken, so that one may live always piously and justly. For as the eye of the body, even when perfectly sound, cannot see unless helped by the brightness of light, so too a man, even when most perfectly justified, cannot live rightly unless he is divinely helped by the eternal light of justice. God therefore heals not only to blot out what we have sinned, but also grants that we may not sin." The same he shows, finely, at length and fully, in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 8, 19.

Likewise, if anyone in charity could resist temptation without God's help, and did so, he would have great merit of patience, and that from himself and not from God. This is false, because every good that is not the first descends from the first good, and because good merits are predestined by God to those who merit them, as the thirty-first and forty-fifth chapters of the first book teach. And Augustine says in On Grace and Free Choice 16: "Since the Pelagians so preach human merits that they say man has them from himself, the Apostle replies most rightly: 'For who distinguishes you? What do you have that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?' To one who thinks such things it is most truly said: God crowns his own gifts, not your merits, if your merits are from yourself and not from him. For if these merits are such, they are evil, and God does not crown them; but if they are good, they are God's gifts, because, as James says, 'Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.' Hence John too, the forerunner of our Lord, says: 'A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from above,' that is, from heaven. From there the Holy Spirit also came: when Jesus ascended on high he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men." And it follows in chapter 17 [n12]: "If therefore your good merits are God's gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as his own gifts." So too he writes to Sixtus the priest, as Lombard recites in Sentences 2, dist. 27: "When God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing other than his own gifts." Holy Scripture and its holy Doctors bear witness to this view very often. Hence, besides the passages alleged above, the Psalmist says to God in Psalm 17 [18]: "For in you I shall be delivered from temptation, and in my God I shall cross the wall"; the Gloss: "in you and through you, not by myself, I shall be delivered from the temptation of the devil." And in Psalm 90 [91] God himself says: "I am with him in tribulation, I will deliver him." And Ecclesiasticus 33: "Evils will not befall one who fears God, but in temptation God will preserve him and deliver him from evils." And Job 5: "In six tribulations he will deliver you, and in the seventh evil will not touch you." This is what Psalm 33 [34] says: "Many are the tribulations of the just, and from all of these the Lord will deliver them." And Psalm 65 [66]: "Who has set my soul to live, and has not let my feet be moved." And Psalm 24 [25]: "The Lord is a stronghold to those who fear him; and my eyes are ever toward the Lord, for he will pluck my feet out of the snare." And Psalm 93 [94]: "Who will rise up with me against the malignant, or who will stand with me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the Lord had helped me, my soul would soon have dwelt in hell. If I said, My foot is moved, your mercy, Lord, helped me; according to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, your consolations have gladdened my soul." And Psalm 103 [104]: "When you open your hand, all things will be filled with good; but when you turn away your face they will be troubled; you will take away their spirit and they will fail, and return to their dust":

[483C–484A]
on which the Gloss says: "The hand is the power of God, which abundantly fills all things; therefore 'when you open your hand,' that is, your power, 'all things will be filled with good; but when you turn away your face,' many, filled with God's goodness, attributed to themselves what they had, and became pleased with themselves. But God, wishing to prove to them that they do not have it from themselves but from God, so that with goodness they may have humility, sometimes troubles them; he turns his face away from them, and they fall into temptation, and so he shows them that their being just and walking rightly came about with him ruling." And Psalm 117 [118]: "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man may do to me; indeed I too shall look down on my enemies. It is good to trust in the Lord rather than to trust in man, or in princes. All nations surrounded me, and in the name of the Lord, for I have avenged myself on them," and so on. "I was pushed and overthrown so that I would fall, and the Lord took me up; the Lord is my strength and my praise, and he has become my salvation; the right hand of the Lord has done mightily, the right hand of the Lord has exalted me." And Psalm 137 [138]: "If I walk in the midst of tribulation, you will give me life, and against the wrath of my enemies you will stretch out your hand, and your right hand has saved me." And Psalm 22 [23]: "If I walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for you are with me." Prosper alleges this verse Against Cassian 21 to prove the same conclusion. So too: "The salvation of the just is from the Lord, and he is their protector in time of tribulation"; and that text of the Apostle in Romans 8, alleged above; and what Christ said to Peter, Luke 22: "Behold, Satan has asked to crush you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail." And immediately he adds: "Whoever does not fall away from him in tribulations, let him not doubt that he is helped. To him the hearts of all the faithful cry out daily, 'Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil'; for the Lord guards the souls of his saints, he will deliver them from the hand of the sinner." Augustine recites this Gospel saying in On Grace and Free Choice 10 for the same purpose. So too Job 6: "What is my strength, that I may endure?" And further on, 17: "Deliver me and set me beside you, and let any man's hand fight against me." As the Apostle says in Romans 8: "If God is with us, who is against us?" And the Psalmist, where before: "If I walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for you are with me." Likewise the Lord himself, Job 40, says to Job [n13]: "Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you tell me: Will you make my judgment void, and condemn me that you may be justified? If you have an arm like God's, and if you thunder with a like voice, clothe yourself with beauty and raise yourself on high, and be glorious; scatter the proud in your wrath, and looking on every arrogant one humble him, and I will counsel you that your right hand can save you." It is as if he said: If you can do the things said above, your right hand can also save you; but if it cannot, [then it cannot]. This is clear from blessed Gregory, Moralia 32, 8, who says that the Lord shows by the end of the question he appended with what intention he set these things first, saying: "'And I will counsel you that your right hand can save you,' as if he were to say openly: If you can do these terrible things which I myself have set forth, I ascribe to you, and not to me, all the good things you have done; but if by looking on sinners you cannot destroy others, it is clear that you cannot by your own power free yourself from the guilt of your wickedness." Behold, it is said to blessed Job in the divine voice that he is not saved by his own power; and yet some men, who are far from the strength of this man, scorn God's help and trust that they can be saved by their own strength. Likewise the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 10: "God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted beyond what you can bear, but will with the temptation also make an outcome, that you may be able to endure." From this it is clear that if God did not make an outcome with the temptation, the one tempted could not endure. Hence Augustine says in On the Freedom of Choice, to Hilary 2: "Free choice therefore avails for good works if it is divinely helped. The Lord's Prayer itself teaches this; for in vain do we ask the Lord, saying, 'Lead us not into temptation,' unless we ask that you not permit us to be led in by forsaking us. 'For God is faithful,' says the Apostle, 'who does not permit you to be tempted beyond what you can bear, but will with the temptation also make a way out, that you may be able to endure.' Why did he say that the Lord himself does this, if it is in our power alone without his help? For the law itself was given as a help for this to those who use it lawfully, that…"

[484B–484E]
…they may know by it either what justice they have already received, for which they may give thanks, or what they still lack, which they may urgently ask for. But those who so hear what the law says, "You shall not covet," that they think what they have learned is enough for them, and do not believe that power and ability to do what is commanded is given to them by the help of grace — for them the law came in besides, that the offense might abound. The same Apostle says the same thing in Romans 8: "If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live." And lest we believe that this happens by our spirit and not God's, he immediately added: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Hence blessed Augustine says in On Grace and Free Choice 26: "You ought not to glory in man, that is, in yourselves, and not in the Lord, when you do not live according to the flesh but by the spirit put to death the deeds of the flesh." And lest those to whom he said these things be puffed up, thinking that they could do all these good works by their own spirit and not God's, therefore, when he had said, "but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live," he immediately added: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. When therefore by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, in order to live, glorify him, praise him, give thanks to him by whose Spirit you are led, that you may be able to do these things, that you may show yourselves sons of God." The same authority of the Apostle he expounds to the same sense in On the Predestination of the Saints 13, and in Against Julian 6, 14 [n14]. Likewise Wisdom 8, the Wise Man speaks in this way: "When I knew that I could not otherwise be continent unless God gave it, and this very thing was wisdom, to know whose gift this was, I went to the Lord and besought him." And in Matthew 19 the Saviour, speaking of virginal continence, said: "Not all take this word, but those to whom it is given; and let him who can take it, take it." The Apostle too, in 1 Corinthians 7, speaking of continence in virginity, widowhood and marriage, says: "I wish all men to be as I myself am," namely continent in virginity, "but each has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that." Therefore no one can, of himself, without God's gift, remain continent in virginity, in widowhood or in marriage. And to this sense Prosper treats these authorities Against Cassian 22, and Augustine in On Grace and Free Choice 8, saying: "'Not all take this word, but those to whom it is given'; for those to whom it is not given either do not wish, or do not fulfil what they wish; so that this word, which is not taken by all, is taken by some, and is both a gift of God and of free choice." Of conjugal chastity itself too the Apostle says: "Let him do what he wishes; he does not sin if he marries," and this too is a gift of God, as Scripture says: "a wife is joined to a husband by the Lord." So the Teacher of the Gentiles, commending in his discourse both conjugal chastity, by which adulteries do not occur, and the more perfect continence, by which no intercourse is sought, showed both the one and the other to be a gift of God. He wrote to the Corinthians, warning spouses not to defraud one another; and when he had warned them he added: "But I would that all men were as I myself am," since of course he abstained from all intercourse, and at once subjoined: "but each has his own gift from God, one thus, another thus." And it follows in the ninth chapter: "Do so many things which are commanded in the law of God, that fornications and adulteries not be committed, indicate anything other than free choice? For they would not be commanded unless man had a will of his own by which to obey the divine precepts; and yet it is a gift of God, without which commanded chastity cannot be kept. Hence the author in the book of Wisdom says: 'When I knew that no one can be continent unless God gives it, and this very thing was wisdom, to know whose gift this was.' But that these holy commandments of chastity are not kept comes of this: each one is tempted, drawn away and enticed by his own concupiscence; and here, if he says, 'I wish to keep them, but I am overcome by my concupiscence,' Scripture answers me: 'Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' That this may happen, grace helps; and unless it helps, the law will be nothing but the power of sin. For concupiscence is increased and takes greater strength when the law forbids, unless the Spirit of grace helps,"

[485A–485D]
and he adds in chapter 10: "For this reason the heavenly Master also says, 'Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation.' Therefore each one, fighting against his own concupiscence, should pray that he not enter into temptation. And no one enters into temptation if by good will he conquers evil concupiscence; and yet the choice of the human will does not suffice unless victory is granted by the Lord. For if the Saviour had said, 'Watch lest you enter into temptation,' he would seem to have admonished only the will of man; but when he added 'and pray,' he showed that God helps, lest one enter into temptation." And by the same reasoning he proves, Against Julian 4, 2, that conjugal continence is a gift of God; and likewise in chapters 3 and 5, Against Julian 15 [n15]. "You distinguish well," he says, "between the lesser good of marriage and the greater good of continence, but you do not abandon your doctrine, most hostile to the grace of God. For you say that God honoured the glory of continence with freedom of choice, saying, 'Let him who can take it, take it,' as though this were taken not by God's gift but by freedom of choice; and you are silent about what he had said above, 'Not all take this word, but those to whom it is given.' See what you say, see what you keep silent." And in the last chapter Augustine addresses Julian thus: "What you say, Christian doctrine does not say — that is, to put your words: that man suffices, by motions innate in him, to give laws to concupiscence. This we do not say; but we say what the Apostle said when speaking of this: 'each has his own gift from God,' and what God said: 'Without me you can do nothing'; and 'Not all take this word, but those to whom it is given' — when he could have said, 'Not all take this word, but those who have willed,' if what you say is true." The same, in On Holy Virginity 17, speaking of continence itself, says this: "The Apostle says, 'I wish all men to be as I myself am, but each has his own gift from God, one thus, another thus.' Who then gives these? Who distributes them as his own, to each as he wills? Surely God, with whom there is no iniquity. By what equity he does thus for some, thus for others, is for man to know either impossible or altogether difficult; but it is not right to doubt that he acts with equity. What then do you have that you have not received? Or by what perversity do you love less him from whom you have received more? Therefore let God's virgin, with the thought of unquestionable humility, not suppose that it is of herself that she is such, rather than that this best gift descends from above from the Father of lights [n16]." And in chapter 18 he proves the same by that text of Wisdom 8 alleged above; and further on: "Whoever remains chaste from the beginning is ruled by him, and whoever from unchaste becomes chaste is corrected by him, and whoever is unchaste to the end is forsaken by him." And through almost that whole book he shows this conclusion with its annexes, as he himself says in Retractations 2, 23: "After I wrote on the good of marriage, it was expected that I write on holy virginity, and I did not delay; but I have shown in one volume, as best I could, that it is a gift of God, how great a gift, and with how great humility it must be guarded." Indeed, what is a greater miracle, any man would commit any sin whatever unless God specially preserved him, as blessed Augustine testifies in On Holy Virginity. After he had greatly exalted virginity, and assigned charity to it as guardian, he took away from the foolish virgins an occasion which could diminish their charity, namely that to those who always live chastely little is forgiven; and he shows that they ought to love God more ardently, who did not permit them to fall into sins, than lapsed persons to whom he has forgiven whatever sins; and that they ought to reckon as wholly forgiven whatever evil has not been committed by them with him ruling. This would not in any way be true unless God so preserved anyone from any sin not committed, which he would otherwise commit; and, so preserved, he would be bound to love God more than one restored [n17]. Hence in chapter 17 he says thus: "Perhaps you will fear less, and swell the more, so as to love little him who has loved you so greatly, since he has forgiven you little — you who have lived from childhood religiously, modestly, in devout chastity, in unspoiled virginity. As though you ought not to love far more ardently him who forgave the shameful, when they returned to him, whatever they had done, and did not permit you to fall into them! Or was that Pharisee, who therefore loved little because he reckoned that little was forgiven him, blinded by this error for any other reason than that, ignorant of God's justice and wishing to establish his own, he was not subject to the justice

[485E–486C]
of God? But you are a chosen race, and among the chosen the more chosen, the virginal choir following the Lamb: you too have been saved by grace through faith, and this not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God, not from works, lest anyone be exalted; for we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus in good works, that we may walk in them. Will you then love him the less, the more you are adorned with his gifts? May he himself avert so horrible a madness. Therefore, since the Truth has said truly that he to whom little is forgiven loves little, that you may love most ardently him for whose love you are free of the bonds of marriage, reckon as wholly forgiven whatever evil has not been committed by you with him ruling. For 'our eyes are ever toward the Lord, for he will pluck our feet out of the snare'; and 'unless the Lord guard the city, he watches in vain who guards it.'" And immediately he proves the same specially of continence, as I alleged above; and he adds: "So he will not think that little has been forgiven him, so that he loves little and, ignorant of God's justice and wishing to establish his own, is not subject to the justice of God. In this vice that Simon laboured, whom the woman surpassed, to whom many sins were forgiven because she loved much. But he will think more cautiously and more truly that all sins from which God guards us, that they not be committed, are to be held as though they were forgiven." And in chapter 23: "Whatever evil you do not commit, with him guarding you, reckon as forgiven by him, lest, thinking that little has been forgiven you, you love little." The same man, in the Sermon on the Magdalene 6, says: "O Pharisee, you love little therefore because you suspect that little is forgiven; not because little is forgiven, but because you reckon what is forgiven to be little. 'What then?' says he. 'I who have not committed murder, am I to be reckoned a murderer? I who have not committed adultery, am I to be punished for adultery? Or are those things to be forgiven me which I did not commit?' See, again, set two before us, and let us speak to them. One comes, a suppliant sinner, covered with thorns like a hedgehog and very timid like a hare; but the rock is the refuge of hedgehogs and hares; he came to the rock, found at the rock a refuge, receives help. Another has not committed many sins: what shall we do to him that he may love much? What shall we persuade him? Shall we go against the words of the Lord, 'to whom little is forgiven, he loves little'? Yes indeed, to whom little is forgiven. But you who say that you have not committed many, I ask: with whom ruling? Was it not God? Thanks be to God that by your stir and your honest voice you have signified that you understood. Now, as I see, the question is solved. This one committed many sins and became the debtor of many; that one, with God governing, committed few. To whom this one ascribes what he forgave, to him let that one on his side ascribe what he did not commit. You were not an adulterer in that past life of yours, full of ignorance, not yet enlightened, not yet discerning good and evil, not yet believing in him who rules you in your ignorance. This your God says to you: 'I was ruling you for myself, I was keeping you for myself, that you might not commit adultery. A persuader was lacking, and that the persuader should be lacking I brought about; place and time were lacking, and that these should be lacking I brought about; the persuader was present, place was not lacking, time was not lacking: that you might not consent, I terrified you. Acknowledge therefore the grace of him to whom you owe also what you did not commit. This one owes me for what was done and, as you saw, forgiven; you too owe me for what you did not do. For there is no sin that a man has done which another man could not do, if the ruler by whom man was made is lacking.'" Likewise the twenty-second proposition of the Sentences of Prosper, to which is also prefixed the title On the Help of God, says thus: "It is of divine gift that we both think rightly and keep our feet from falsehood and injustice." But here perhaps someone will reply and say that the aforesaid book of Augustine is entitled not On Virginity simply but On Holy Virginity. Therefore all those things about virginity or continence alleged above ought to be understood of holy virginity, or holy continence, and the like, of the kind found only in believers, on account of the sanctity of chastity which perfects and completes all virtues. For all holy continence, as to its holiness, is from God, but as to continence itself simply, is from free choice of the will, and therefore it is found also in unbelievers. But this is refuted manifestly by the next chapter [n18], and by the authority of Augustine from the Sermon on the Magdalene set forth above.

[486D–487A]
Nor had this falsification escaped the holy Fathers. For this was the effrontery of Julian, heretic and follower of Pelagius, which he set against Augustine when Augustine said that continence was a gift of God: for continence, said Julian, is found in unbelievers from free choice of the will, without any other gift of God. Hence Augustine says, Against Julian 4, chapter 5: "You, enemies of the bitterest kind, set before us the examples of the impious, whom you say, though alien to the faith, abound in virtues; in whom, without the help of grace, there is only the good of nature, though enslaved to superstitions; who by the strength of innate freedom alone are found often merciful and modest and chaste and sober." To this Augustine replies in two ways. First, that these things, even in unbelievers, are gifts of God, and do not proceed merely from free choice. Second, that these and the like in unbelievers are not true virtues. Hence in the same fifth chapter he refutes Julian thus: "How much better it would be, if it delights you so to praise the impious, to do so in such a way that you do not hear Scripture saying, 'He who says that the impious man is just will be cursed among the people and detestable among the nations,' rather than proclaim them to abound in true virtues [n19]! How much better, I say, would you confess that these very things in them are gifts of God, under whose hidden, yet not unjust, judgment some are born foolish, others of very slow wit, others forgetful, others quick or mindful." And so he goes through all the other differences of vices and virtues by induction, and adds at the end of the chapter: "How much more tolerable, then, it would be to ascribe those which you say are virtues of the impious to the divine gift, rather than only to their will — though they themselves do not know it — until, if they are of the number of the predestined, they receive the Spirit who is of God, that they may know what has been given them by God." And further on, in chapter 6, he proves the same by the authority of the Pythagorean and Platonic school, speaking thus: "But you in this cause, even if you appeal to the school of Pythagoras or of Plato, where men most learned and erudite, far more eminent than the rest in philosophical nobility, said that there are no true virtues except those which are in a certain way imprinted on the mind from the form of that eternal and immutable substance which is God — even there, against you, as far as he grants who has called us, I shall cry out with the freedom of piety: neither in these is there true justice." And further on, in the same place, he proves specially that the continence of unbelievers is not true virtue, and says: "Neither is the continence or chastity of the impious true virtue, since, when these gifts of God are not referred to their Author, by this very fact those who use them badly become unjust." Therefore the continence and chastity even of the impious are gifts of God. And in chapter 10 he says that all the goods of unbelievers, whether goods of the soul or of the body, are gifts of God; and further down, in 12, after a long course, he finally concludes thus: "From which it is gathered that even the good works themselves which unbelievers do are not theirs, but his who uses evil men well." Following him, the venerable Bede wrote a special book against the same heretic Julian; in whose chapter 12, among his many errors, he recites this one: "How many of the philosophers," says Julian,

[487B–487C]
"we have heard of, and read, and ourselves have seen: chaste, patient, modest, generous, abstinent, kind, scorning at once the honours and delights of the world, and lovers of justice no less than of wisdom. Whence, I ask, do men alien from God have the things that please God? Whence do they have these goods unless from the good of nature? And as I said, whether we see one man having all, or individuals having single ones, and since there is one nature of men, they show one another by their example that all things can be in all, which are found singly in individuals; and this even men without God show, what sort they were made by God. See what Christians can do, whose nature has been restored to the better through Christ, and who are helped by the aid of divine grace." To him Bede replies, chapter 13, thus: "When he says that many of the philosophers have patience, chastity, modesty and other virtues from the good of nature, it is established that whichever of the philosophers did not know Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, these could have no true virtue or true wisdom. But in so far as they had any taste of any wisdom whatever, or any likeness of virtue, they received all this from above, not only by the gift of the first creation, but also by his daily grace, who, forsaking not his creature that forsakes not him [n20], bestows his gifts on men as he himself has judged: great gifts on the great, and small on the small." Augustine too, in the sermon on patience, which is the forty-ninth among his sermons, chapter 12: "If anyone," he says, "not having the charity that belongs to the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace by which the Catholic Church is gathered and held together, being in some schism, suffers tribulations, anguish, hunger, nakedness, dangers, persecution, prisons, chains, torments, the sword, or flames, or beasts, or the cross itself, lest he deny Christ, for fear of Gehenna and eternal fire: in no way are these things to be blamed; indeed even here the patience is to be praised. For we could not say that it would have been better for him, by denying Christ, to suffer none of those things which he suffered by confessing; but it is to be thought that the judgment to come will perhaps be more tolerable for him than if by denying Christ he had avoided all those things. But it can reasonably be asked whether this patience too is a gift

[487D–487E]
…whether this patience too is a gift of God, or is to be attributed to the powers of the human will, by which anyone who has been separated from the Church suffers temporal punishments from fear of eternal ones. He suffers them not for the error that separated him, but for the truth of the sacrament or word that remains with him.[n21] For we must take care. If we say that this patience is a gift of God, those who have it might be believed to belong to the kingdom of God as well. If we deny that it is a gift of God, we are forced to admit that something good can be in the human will without the help and gift of God. Nor is it not good for a man to believe that he will be punished with eternal punishment if he denies Christ, and to endure for that faith whatever punishment, and to scorn human punishment. Therefore, just as we must not deny that this is a gift of God, so we must understand that there are different gifts for the children of that Jerusalem which is above, our free mother. For these gifts are in a way hereditary, and in them we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. But there are other gifts that even the sons of concubines can receive, to whom carnal Jews, schismatics and heretics are compared. For although it is written, "Cast out the handmaid and her son, for the son of the handmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac," and God said to Abraham, "In Isaac shall your seed be called" (which the Apostle interpreted thus, to say, that is: not those who are children of the flesh are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed), so that we might understand that the seed of Abraham according to Isaac belongs, because of Christ, to the children of God, who are the body and members of Christ, that is, the one, true, genuine, catholic Church of God, which holds a pious faith, not the faith that works through pride or fear, but the one that works through love: nevertheless Abraham also gave the sons of his concubines some gifts when he sent them away from his son Isaac, so that they would not be left wholly empty-handed, though not so that they might be held as heirs. For so we read: "And Abraham gave all his substance to Isaac his son, and to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son." If, then, we are children of the free Jerusalem, let us understand the gifts of the disinherited as one thing and the gifts of the heirs as another. For these are the heirs of whom it is said, "For you have not received the spirit of slavery again in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption as children, in which we cry, Abba, Father."

[488A–488C]
Again, the response given above does not stand with that saying of the Wise Man: "As I knew that I could not be continent unless God gave it." For he is speaking there of continence absolutely, not only of holy continence in holiness, that is, of chastity. Nor does it stand with that saying of the Saviour: "Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given." He said this when he himself was declaring that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman put away commits adultery. His disciples said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (supply: "it is expedient to be continent"). To those who spoke thus he replied, "Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given." Just as they themselves were speaking absolutely of marrying, and understood it of being continent, so it seems that the Saviour answered with the same understanding. Nor can it stand with that saying of the Apostle: "Each one has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that." For he was speaking to believers already converted and having charity. Therefore that "own" gift, or difference, cannot be understood of a difference of continence as to the having or lack of holiness, and because the Apostle does not there call lack of holiness a gift of God, it is understood of the propriety, or difference, of continence itself essentially, namely virginal, widowed, and also conjugal continence, of believers having the holiness of chastity.[n22] And so all Catholic expositors explain that passage. Likewise Augustine, as was cited above, treating that saying of the Apostle, says that it is impossible, or altogether difficult, for a man to know by what justice God acts in one way for some and in another way for others. Therefore God makes one believer practise continence virginally and another conjugally. This is also clearly evident, because if the virginal or conjugal continence of believers depended only on the free choice of the human will, it would be easy for a man to know why one is continent in this way and another in that: namely, because one freely wills this way and another freely wills that. Again, continence from any sin is a gift of God, as was cited above from Augustine. Therefore the continence of married believers from a conjugal act that is culpable venially is a gift of God. Indeed all continence of believers or unbelievers from any lapse into fornication, adultery or incest is specially a gift of God. Therefore all continence, not only according to its circumstance, which is the holiness of chastity, but according to its substance, whether joined to chastity or separated from it, is truly a gift of God. Nor should it seem remarkable that God gives chastity to unbelievers, because, as the thirty-first of the first part shows, all things, even those of unbelievers, are governed by divine providence. For he himself freely gives them body and soul and whatever good they have in any way. Hence we read in Genesis 20 that Abimelech, king of Gerara, took Sarah, Abraham's wife, but did not touch her, and the reason is given there as follows. God said to him, "I know that you did it with a simple heart, and therefore I kept you from sinning against me, and did not let you touch her." A similar thing is written earlier in the same book, ch. 12: that Sarai, Abraham's wife, was taken away into the house of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that God scourged Pharaoh

[488D–488E]
and his house with very great plagues because of her, so that he did not touch her at all, as all Catholic expositors supply.[n23] It is evident, then, that whoever overcomes a wicked temptation of the flesh does so not only by the powers of free choice but by the help of God. The same is therefore evident in all other temptations. Hence the Psalmist in Psalm 120 [121]: "The Lord keeps you, the Lord is your protection at your right hand. By day the sun shall not burn you, nor the moon by night. The Lord keeps you from all evil." And in Psalm 123 [124]: "If it had not been that the Lord was in us, let Israel now say, if it had not been that the Lord was in us, when men rose up against us, perhaps they would have swallowed us alive, when their fury was kindled against us; perhaps the water would have swallowed us up." This is the fifth Psalm of Degrees, and the fifth degree, as the gloss says there, is that those delivered from dangers should ascribe it not to themselves but to the Lord. And lest this adverb of doubting, "perhaps" (forte or forsitan), lead anyone to doubt whether the Psalmist said these things asserting or rather doubting, it must be known, according to the gloss, that for this Greek word of doubting (ἆρα)[n24] the Latins put "perhaps," although it would be more intelligibly said, "Do you think?" So that the sense is: when men rose up against us, do you think they would have swallowed us alive? As if he were saying: No, certainly not. And therefore, according to the gloss, in the first part of the Psalm the saints, mindful of how much they escaped, ascribe it to the mercy of God alone. In the second part they give thanks because they have been freed, saying: "Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us as a prey to their teeth. Our soul has been delivered like a sparrow from the snare of the hunters; the snare is broken, and we are freed. Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth." And Psalm 124 [125]: "The Lord will not leave the rod of sinners upon the lot of the just, lest the just stretch out their hands to iniquity." Again the Apostle, in 2 Corinthians 4: "We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the greatness

[489A–489C]
of the power may be God's and not from us. In all things we suffer tribulation, but we are not distressed; we are perplexed, but not destitute; we suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we do not perish." And as he himself says earlier in the same epistle, chapter 1: "that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God." To the same end the whole sequence of both Testaments works most plainly and fully, in the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, the Hagiographa, the Gospels, and all the Epistles too. I therefore reckon it sufficiently clear to any humble Catholic that no one who is tempted can overcome any temptation by the powers of free choice alone, whether without grace or with grace however great, without some further special help of God. And if anyone thinks otherwise, however much he may be favoured with grace, let him beware lest he think without sobriety, but rather be wiser than he ought. Let him play the fool; let such a man presume on his own power; but let him beware, because God humbles those who presume on their own power.[n25] Let him say in his abundance, "I shall not be moved for ever"; but let him heed what follows: "Lord, in your will you gave strength to my beauty," and let him beware lest God turn his face from him and he become troubled, and there be no profit in his blood when he goes down to corruption. Let him say with the Angel of the Church of Laodicea, "I am rich and wealthy, and have need of nothing," but let him beware of what the Amen, the faithful and true witness, says to that Angel: "I know your works, that you are neither hot nor cold. Would that you were hot or cold; but because you are lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to spew you out of my mouth, because you say that I am rich and wealthy and have need of nothing; and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Let him not say to the heavenly Father, "Lead us not into temptation," or I shall tell him boldly that he has been led into the worst temptation. Let him not say, "O God, come to my help," nor any other such words, which the true and humble Church of God never ceases to say with all devotion. Let him hope in his own bow, and let his sword save him, and without doubt God himself will turn away the help of his sword, and it will not help him in battle. He will destroy him from his cleansing and dash his seat to the ground; he will shorten the days of his time and cover him with confusion; and the just will see and fear, and will laugh at him, and will say: "Behold the man who did not make God his helper."[n26] But the sober children of the Church do not think thus, are not wise or foolish thus, do not rave thus; they say, humbly, truly and soundly: "God is our refuge and strength, a helper in the tribulations that have found us exceedingly; therefore we shall not fear when the earth is troubled," presuming on its own firmness, "and the mountains," lifted up and exalting their own powers, "are carried over into the heart of the deepest sea."

NOTES

1. The argument turns on the Latin ablative absolute quo facto, "which having been done." I keep the literal "which having been done" throughout. The three resolutions below ("if," "because," "while") are the standard ways of expanding an ablative absolute.
2. The print reads aliquid quo aliquid, quo facto, with a stray repetition of quo aliquid. I translate the evident sense, "something which having been done," and have not emended the Latin.
3. Savile's numbers (Phys. 5, 7 ff.; 6, 32) follow the medieval Latin Aristotle with Averroes's commentary, by text and comment, not the Bekker pagination; I leave them as printed. The print has Pater quoque Philosophum where one expects Patet quoque per Philosophum, with per apparently dropped; the margin offers vt. I translate "evident from the Philosopher."
4. gratus here means "in possession of grace," i.e. the viator in gratia of the following paragraphs. The word plays on gratia, "grace."
5. The print has per oppositionem alicuius vnitatis, "by the opposition of some unit." The sense, and the parallel at 479E (per appositionem), require appositionem, "addition." I translate "addition."
6. subseruienter et subexecutiue ("serving under and executing under"): God's disposing of the number follows and executes what men's wills have first determined. The two adverbs are Bradwardine's own coinages for the supposed subordination.
7. The Secretum secretorum, a pseudo-Aristotelian letter of advice to Alexander. Bradwardine takes it as the work of "the Philosopher."
8. Savile's contra Cassianum is Prosper's Contra collatorem, written against Cassian's Thirteenth Conference.
9. ingratus … gratias: the "ungrateful" man fails to render thanks (gratias). The word plays on gratia, "grace." The same play recurs below in grate referat gratias, "give thanks gratefully."
10. The saying is Augustine's, Confessions 13.9 (as normally read, pondus meum amor meus; eo feror quocumque feror, "my weight is my love; by it I am borne wherever I am borne"). Savile's text has pes, "foot," for pondus, to match the psalm verse about the feet; his margin glosses pes, est amor. The following quotations, with "weight," show the usual form.
11. No subject is expressed for debent commoneri. The clause ignorant iustitiam Dei shows that those to be reminded are the upholders of the power of the human will (cf. Rom 10:3). I leave the subject as "they."
12. "Chapter 17" names no work. The passage quoted is Augustine's On Grace and Free Choice (cited just above as chapter 16, Savile's numbering); "Sixtus the priest" is the recipient of Augustine's Ep. 194, where the same sentence occurs.
13. The Latin reads Item Dominus ipse Iob 40. Iob dicebat, Accinge… ("Job was saying"), which cannot be construed here. The sense is clearly the Lord's address to Job (Job 40:2–9), so I translate "says to Job".
14. The Latin is 13. et 6. contra Iulianum 14. I read it as On the Predestination of the Saints ch. 13, and Against Julian book 6, ch. 14. The numerals are as printed.
15. cap. 3o. et 5o. contra Iulianum 15. The previous reference (4. contra Iulianum 2) is by book and chapter. This one gives chapters 3 and 5 followed by a bare "15". I cannot tell whether 15 is a book number, and leave it as printed.
16. The print reads Quapropter hoc possit indubitandae humilitatis cogitatione, a se sibi putet esse Dei virgo, quod talis est, ac non potius hoc donum…descendere (Savile's margin offers haec for hoc). As it stands, "let her suppose it is of herself … and not rather that it descends" contradicts the argument; a negative (ne or non) seems to have dropped out before putet. I translate the evident sense and do not adopt the variant.
17. The Latin of this last clause (quod aliter illud committeret nisi quoque praeseruatus, amplius reparato Deum diligere teneretur) is loose; I follow the evident sense. The one preserved is held to love God more than the one restored.
18. per capitulum proximum can mean the next chapter or the one just preceding; I take it as the next.
19. Quanto satius, si te impios ita laudare delectat, vt non audias… sed virtutibus veris eos praedices abundare? Taken literally, the sed-clause says the opposite of what the context needs. The following sentence ("How much better would you confess that these things are gifts of God") shows the sense, and a non before virtutibus veris may have fallen out. I translate the sense and do not emend.
20. Latin qui creaturam suam nec se deserentem deserens: literally "forsaking his creature that is not forsaking him". A non before deserens has evidently fallen out (the sense must be "does not forsake"). I give the sense.
21. The whole passage from "whether this patience too…" through "…not so that they might be held as heirs" is Augustine, De patientia 26 (Savile cites it as a "sermon," no. 49 of the sermons, ch. 12). The quotation continues from the preceding unit and appears to run to the end of 488A's "Abba, Father," though Savile marks no end.
22. proprietas, siue alietas: alietas is a scholastic coinage for "being-otherwise," that is, the difference between one person's gift and another's in 1 Cor 7:7 ("one in this way, another in that"). I render it "difference."
23. Genesis 12 says only that God struck Pharaoh and his house with plagues on Sarai's account; that Pharaoh did not touch her is what the expositors "supply," as Bradwardine says. Sarai/Sarah: Savile gives both forms, following the two chapters.
24. The Greek word is very small in the 1618 print and the keyed text has a gap. I read it as ἆρα, the interrogative particle, which fits "An putas" ("Do you think?") in the next clause. This is from my reading of the page image; I have not checked it against the archive.org copy.
25. desipiat, praesumat talis…, sed caueat: the three subjunctives are concessive imperatives, in the same pattern as the later "Let him say… but let him heed." desipiat is "let him play the fool," set against sapiat ("think," "be wise"), with a play on Rom 12:3 ("not to think more highly than one ought, but to think soberly").
26. The passage is a mosaic of psalm verses turned into threats against the self-reliant man. Ps 43:7 [44:6] ("I will not trust in my bow, and my sword will not save me") is inverted. Ps 88:44–46 [89:43–45] ("you turned away the help of his sword… you destroyed him from his cleansing… you shortened the days of his time… you poured confusion over him"), which are addressed to God in the past tense, are put into the future. The ending is Ps 51:8 [52:6–7]. The last sentence quotes Ps 45:2–3 [46:1–2], with Bradwardine's added glosses on "earth" and "mountains."