Book II, Chapter 9
CHAPTER IX. That neither man nor angel, with however great a grace before the fall, could persevere finally, or even for a time, without another special help of God.
498A CAP. IX. Quod nec homo nec Angelus cum quantacunque gratia ante lapsum potuit perseuerare finaliter, vel ad tempus sine alio Dei auxilio speciali.
Having shown that man after the fall, though restored by grace, cannot persevere finally, or even for a time, by the strength of free choice alone, or even of any created grace whatever, without another help of God, it remains to show next that neither man nor angel before the fall, supported by however great a created grace, could so persevere finally, or even for an hour. This will be shown in like manner by the reasons that showed the principal conclusion of the preceding chapter.
Again, if free choice in grace before the fall were able to persevere in this way, it would likewise be able to overcome any temptation and guard against any sin. Since after the fall it is not infinitely weaker (for it would then have lost all its strength entirely), it could now also, with as much grace as it had then, overcome some temptation: a temptation weaker by exactly as much as free choice is now weaker than before, as due proportionality clearly proves. This is contrary to the fourth chapter of this second book.
Or again, to the same effect: by as much as free choice has been weakened through the fall, by so much let it have greater grace, so that the same proportion is always preserved, etc., as before.
And if someone wished to answer by saying that before the fall there was no difficulty at all in resisting the tempter, whereas after the fall there is always some difficulty, so that the argument does not go through: on the contrary, that answer recoils on him. For if free choice, by its own strength, or with grace but without another help of God, was then able to resist every temptation without any difficulty, it could do so now, though with some *C1 difficulty. Difficulty by no means rules out the whole possibility of free choice, nor does it entail impossibility; if it did, the thing would never be called difficult, but impossible. For the powers of free choice, though weakened and resisting with some difficulty, still exceed the powers of some temptation or tempter.
Many saints, moreover, in this present state, are believed to have overcome very many temptations without any difficulty or distress, indeed with great ease and joy; and many sins by which they were in no way tempted they guarded against without any difficulty, indeed with the greatest ease. Nor is it at all perfectly clear that angel or man before the fall had no difficulty whatever. It would seem astonishing if man could then move every weight, whatever its kind, without any difficulty, indeed with equal ease. It seems no less amazing if he could then have distinguished every letter or colour, in ‖D1 any light whatever, strong or faint, and at any distance, great or small, without any difficulty, uncertainty or error, indeed with equal ease, certainty and verification. I leave these matters, however, to a more eager inquirer, and pursue what I have begun.
‖D2 Holy Augustine, then, speaking of man before the fall in Enchiridion 88 1, says this: "Man was made upright in such a way that he could remain in the same uprightness, though not without divine help, and could become perverse by his own choice."
498B OStenso, quod homo post lapsum per gratiam reparatus non potest solius liberi arbitrij viribus, seu etiam gratiae creatae quantaelibet, sine alio Dei auxilio perseuerare finaliter, nec ad tempus; Restat ostendere consequenter quod homo nec Angelus ante lapsum quantacunque gratia creata suffultus sic potuit perseuerare finaliter, vel ad horam: hoc nempe per rationes ostendentes conclusionem principalem capituli proximi similiter ostendetur. Item si liberum arbitrium in gratia ante lapsum sic perseuerate valebat, valebat similiter tentationem quamlibet superare, et peccatum quodlibet praecauere, et cum iam post lapsum non sit infinite debilius, quia sic totam suam fortitudinem
498C penitus amisisset, posset et nunc cum tanta gratia quantam tunc habuit tentationem aliquam superare, tentationem scilicet debiliorem in tantum, in quantum ipsum liberum arbitrium est debilius nunc quam prius, sicut proportionalitas debita clare probat; quod est contra quartum capitulum huius secundi. Vel etiam sic ad idem, quantum liberum arbitrium est debilitatum per lapsum, tantum habeat gratiam ampliorem, ita quod semper eadem proportio conseruetur, etc. sicut prius. Et si quis voluerit respondere dicendo, quod ante lapsum nulla fuit difficultas omnino resistere tentatori, sed post lapsum semper est aliqua difficultas, quare ratio non procedit: Imo illa responsio retrocedet: Si enim liberum arbitrium proprijs viribus, vel cum gratia sine alio Dei auxilio tunc potuit sine difficultate omni tentationi resistere, posset et nunc, licet cum difficultate *C1 aliqua. Difficultas enim nequaquam totam liberi arbitrij possibilitatem excludit, et impossibilitatem includit, quia si sic esset, nequaquam difficile, sed impossibile diceretur; adhuc enim vires liberi arbitrij licet debilitate et
498D cum difficultate aliqua resistentes alicuius tentationis seu tentatoris vires excedunt. Multi quoque sancti in hoc statu sine aliqua difficultate aut molestia, imo cum magna facilitate et laetitia tentationes quamplurimas, vt creditur, superabant, multa quoque peccata de quibus nullatenus tentabantur sine dificultate aliqua, imo et cum facilitate maxima praecauebant. Nec est omnino clarissimum, quod Angelo vel homini ante lapsum nulla fuerit penitus difficultas: Mirum enim videtur si homo tunc potuit omne pondus sine quacunque difficultate, imo et aequali facilitate qualitercunque mouere; Nec minus videtur mirabile si omnem literam seu colorem in ‖D1 qualicunque lumine intenso vel remisso, et ad quamlibet distantiam magnam vel paruam, sine aliqua difficultate, incertitudine aut errore, imo cum aequali facilitate, certitudine et verificatione tunc potuit discreuisse; ista tamen propensiori studio derelinquo, prosequens quod incaepi. ‖D2 Sanctus igitur Augustinus loquens de homine ante lapsum Enchirid. 88. sic dicit; Sic factus est homo rectus, vt et manere in eadem rectitudine posset
The same author on the same subject, in On Rebuke and Grace 48, says: "God had then given man a good will; in it he had made him upright. He had given the help without which he could not remain in it, even if he wished." And in chapter 49, concerning man and angel before the fall: "If this help," he says, "had been lacking either to the angel or to the man when they were first made, since their nature had not been made such that it could remain without divine help if it wished, they would certainly not have fallen by their own fault; for the help would have been lacking without which they could not remain." And further on in the same place: "The first man did not need grace in order to receive the good, because he had not yet lost it; but in order to remain in it he needed the help of grace, without which he could not possibly do so."
The same Augustine, in On Nature and Grace 50, after reciting the arguments of someone who strove to show by a topic from similarity that not sinning is placed in our power 2, says: "Just as these similitudes are false, so is that for the sake of which he wanted to use them. For he goes on and says, 'In like manner, then, the possibility of not sinning is to be understood in this way: that not sinning is ours, that is, in our power.'" And Augustine adds: "If he were speaking of the whole and sound nature of man, which we do not now have, even so he could not rightly say that not sinning is ours alone, although sinning would be ours by nature, and God's help would be there too, like light to healthy eyes, by which they may see as they strive" 3.
The same Augustine says to the same effect in City of God 14, next to last chapter 4: "Why should God not allow the first man, who had been created upright, that is, of good will, to be tempted by the evil angel? For he had been so constituted that if, as a good man, he relied on God's help, he would conquer the evil angel; but if, pleasing himself in pride, he abandoned God as his creator and helper, he would be conquered. He would have good merit in a right will helped by God, and evil merit in a perverse will abandoning God. For even to rely on God's help he could not do without God's help; yet he did have it in his power, by pleasing himself, to withdraw from these benefits of divine grace. For just as to live in this flesh without God's help and without the aid of food is not possible, whereas not to live in it is in one's power, as those do who kill themselves, so to live well in it without God's help was not in one's power even in Paradise, though to live badly was in his power."
From these things, then, the first part of the conclusion to be principally shown is evident. From them too, together with the preceding corollary and the reasons proving it, the second part will likewise be evident.
498E non sine diuino adiutorio, et suo fieri peruersus arbitrio. Idem de eodem de correptione et gratia 48. sic ait, Tunc dederat homini Deus bonam voluntatem; in illa quippe eum fecerat rectum; dederat adiutorium sine quo in ea non posset permanere si vellet, et capit. 49. de homine et Angelo ante lapsum, Si, inquit, hoc adiutorium vel angelo vel homini cum primum facti sunt, defuisset, quoniam natura talis non erat facta, vt sine diuino adiutorio posset manere si vellet, non vtique sua culpa cecidisset; adiutorium quippe defuisset, sine quo manere non posset; et infra eodem, primus homo vt reciperet bonum gratia non egebat, quia nondum perdiderat; vt autem in eo permaneret, egebat adiutorio gratiae sine quo omnino non posset. Idem que de natura et gratia 50. recitatis cuiusdam argumentis per locum a simili
499A ostendere molientis, quod non peccare in nostra potestate sit positum, ita dicit; Sicut istae similitudines falsae sunt, ita et illud propter quod eas voluit adhibere; sequitur enim, et dicit, Simili ergo modo de non peccandi possibilitate intelligendum est, quod non peccare nostrum sit, in nostra scilicet potestate; et addit Augustinus, Si de integra et sana hominis natura loqueretur, quam modo non habemus, nec sic recte diceret, quod non peccare nostrum tantummodo sit, quamuis peccare nostrum esset natura, et ibi esset adiutorium Dei, et tanquam lumen sanis oculis, quo adniti videant. Idem quoque ad idem: 14. de Civitate Dei penult. dicit ita, Cur non permitteret Deus vt a malo Angelo primus homo qui rectus, hoc est bonae voluntatis creatus fuerat, tentaretur, quando quidem sic erat institutus, vt si de adiutorio Dei fideret bonus homo, malum Angelum vinceret; si autem creatorem atque adiutotem Deum superbe sibi placendo desereret, vinceretur, meritum bonum habens in adiuta diuinitus voluntate recta, malum vero in deserente Deum voluntate peruersa; quia et ipsum fidere de adiutorio
499B Dei non quidem posset sine adiutorio Dei, nec tamen ab his diuinae gratiae beneficijs sibi placendo recedere non habebat in potestate: Nam sicut in hac carne, viuere sine adiutorio Dei et sine adiumentis alimentorum non est, non autem in ea viuere, in potestate est, quod faciunt qui seipsos necant; Ita bene in ea viuere sine adiutorio Dei etiam in Paradiso non erat in potestate, erat autem in potestate male viuere. Ex his ergo patet prima pars conclusionis principaliter ostendendae ex quibus etiam cum corollario proximo et rationibus ipsum probantibus patebit similiter et secunda.
Notes
- 1
Savile's chapter numbers for the Augustine citations in this chapter (Enchiridion 88; De correptione et gratia 48, 49; De natura et gratia 50) follow an older chapter division and do not match the modern numbering. The passages are Enchiridion (on Adam's uprightness); De correptione et gratia chs 11–12 (on Adam's "good will" and the adiutorium sine quo non); and De natura et gratia, late in the work. They are translated here as Bradwardine gives them. For the passage from City of God 14, "next to last" is chapter 27 of the modern numbering.
↩ - 2
The "someone" (cuiusdam) whose similitudes Augustine rejects is Pelagius, whose On Nature Augustine is answering in De natura et gratia. The grammar is loose (recitatis cuiusdam argumentis … molientis): the genitive molientis agrees with cuiusdam, and recitatis argumentis is an ablative absolute.
↩ - 3
quamuis peccare nostrum esset natura is translated as printed, and it does construe. The sense Augustine requires, however, is that even in sound nature not sinning would be "ours" only with God's help, so a negative (non peccare) may be expected. adniti videant (literally "may see to strive") is likewise awkward. Augustine's own text has a participle, "may see as they strive".
↩ - 4
See note 1. Savile's "14 … penult." is City of God XIV.27.
↩
Errata: where the keyed text and the 1618 print differ (3)
| Savile | Keyed text (TCP) | 1618 print |
|---|---|---|
| 498B | perseuerate | perseuerare |
| 499A | adiutotem | adiutorem |
| 498D (margin 498D·1) | quocun que | quocunq; [= quocunque] |