Among those who employed fixed and established formulas, first of all there comes to mind John Damascene, most distinguished among the Greek theologians, who in the eighth century arranged Christian wisdom, previously diffused and scattered through almost innumerable books, into one system and harmonious body1 with such dexterity that he showed to the doctors who followed the way and method of an ordered treatment.
Therefore, in the work which he entitled ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith2, when he had advanced to the discussion περὶ προνοίας, on providence3, after observing under the guidance of Nemesius4 that all the works of providence are so fittingly divided that some are judged to be administered κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν, according to good pleasure, and others κατὰ συγχώρησιν, according to permission, and that to the first kind belong the things which ἀναντιρρήτως εἰσὶν ἀγαθά, are good beyond controversy, but that τῆς δὲ συγχωρήσεως, of permission, there are πολλὰ εἴδη, many modes and many species, he continues:
Χρὴ δὲ εἰδέναι, ὡς ὁ Θεὸς προηγουμένως θέλει πάντας σωθῆναι, καὶ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ τυχεῖν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ κολάσαι ἔπλασεν ἡμᾶς, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ μετασχεῖν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ, ὡς ἀγαθός· ἁμαρτάνοντας δὲ θέλει κολάζεσθαι, ὡς δίκαιος. Λέγεται οὖν, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον, προηγούμενον θέλημα, καὶ εὐδοκία, ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὄν· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον, ἑπόμενον θέλημα, καὶ παραχώρησις, ἐξ ἡμετέρας αἰτίας· καὶ αὕτη διττή, ἡ μὲν οἰκονομικὴ καὶ παιδευτικὴ πρὸς σωτηρίαν, ἡ δὲ ἀπογνωστικὴ πρὸς τελείαν κόλασιν, ὡς εἰρήκαμεν. Ταῦτα δὲ ἐπὶ τῶν οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν. Τῶν δὲ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, τὰ μὲν ἀγαθὰ, προηγουμένως θέλει καὶ εὐδοκεῖ· τὰ δὲ πονηρὰ καὶ ὄντως κακὰ, οὔτε προηγουμένως, οὔτε ἑπομένως θέλει, παραχωρεῖ δὲ τῷ αὐτεξουσίῳ. Τὸ γὰρ κατὰ βίαν γινόμενον, οὐ λογικόν, οὐδὲ ἀρετή. Προνοεῖ ὁ Θεὸς πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως εὐεργετῶν καὶ παιδεύων, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν πολλάκις τῶν δαιμόνων, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἰὼβ, καὶ τῶν χοίρων.
This likewise ought to be known: that God first and antecedently wills all to be saved and to become partakers of his kingdom. For he did not create us in order to punish us, but, because he is good, that we might be partakers of his goodness. But he wills sinners to be punished because he is just. Therefore5 the first will is called antecedent and good pleasure, of which God himself is the cause; but the second is called consequent and permission, of which we are the cause. The latter is twofold: one which is contained in dispensation and issues in salvation, and another which proceeds from reprobation6 and regards the final punishment, as we have said. And these are occupied with those things which are not in our power. But of the things which are situated in us, God wills the good things primarily and from good pleasure; but the evil things which are truly such he wills neither primarily nor consequently, but permits to free choice. For that which is produced by force is neither consonant with reason nor merits the name of virtue. God provides for all creatures, and through the whole creation does good and instructs, frequently even through the demons themselves, as may be seen in Job and the swine.
Footnotes
-
Cf. Michael Lequien’s preface to the works of Damascene. ↩
-
This exposition of Damascene is compared with no little advantage with that epitome of the divine dogmas which Theodoret published in the fifth century and whose order, to be retained and expressed, Damascene seems to have proposed to himself. ↩
-
On the Orthodox Faith, book II, chap. XXIX. ↩
-
On the Nature of Man, chap. XLIV. ↩
-
“The sense of Damascene,” Lequien writes in the appended annotation, “is approved by St. Thomas, I, q. XIX, a. VI; and neither of them indicates or thought that only the state of innocence pertains to the antecedent will, as neither did the other Greeks. Now most of the Fathers, and especially the Orientals, teach with one consent that God, since he is supremely good and φιλόψυχος, a lover of souls, wills with a propense affection that absolutely all men be saved. See Cyril of Alexandria, book I, On Adoration in Spirit. Wherefore, lest the system of Augustinian doctrine concerning divine grace seem to some to be defective in this head, St. Prosper and the author of the book On the Calling of the Nations undertook to defend this good will of God.” Yet I. Augustine had likewise defended it, not only before undertaking the episcopate, but also when he was already a bishop and was contending and gaining triumphs for the Catholic cause against the Pelagians and the Massilians. But II. in what sense that which Lequien affirms concerning the agreement between Damascene and Thomas both can and ought to be received will become evident in its place below. ↩
-
Lequien indeed renders the adjective ἀπογνωστική in this way, but perhaps Billius somewhat more suitably, who translates it “from desperation.” For properly ἀπόγνοια and ἀπόγνωσις are desperation, ἀπογνώστης, one who despairs; whence ἀπογνωστικόν, proceeding from desperation. This also agrees well with those things which precede: Τῆς δὲ ἐγκαταλείψεως εἰσὶν εἴδη δύο· ἔστι γὰρ ἐγκατάλειψις οἰκονομικὴ καὶ παιδευτική, καὶ ἔστιν ἐγκατάλειψις τελεία ἀπογνωστική· οἰκονομικὴ μὲν καὶ παιδευτική, ἡ πρὸς διόρθωσιν καὶ σωτηρίαν καὶ δόξαν τοῦ πάσχοντος γινομένη, ἢ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλων ζῆλον καὶ μίμησιν, ἢ καὶ πρὸς δόξαν Θεοῦ· ἡ δὲ τελεία ἐγκατάλειψις, ὅτε τοῦ Θεοῦ πάντα τὰ πρὸς σωτηρίαν πεποιηκότος, ἀνεπαίσθητος καὶ ἀνιάτρευτος, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀνίατος, ἐξ οἰκείας προθέσεως διαμείνῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος· τότε παραδίδοται εἰς τελείαν ἀπώλειαν, ὡς ὁ Ἰούδας, “Moreover, there are two kinds of abandonment. For there is a certain abandonment which occurs according to a definite counsel and dispensation and for our instruction. There is again another which proceeds from complete desperation. That which occurs according to a definite counsel is that which exists for the amendment and salvation and glory of the one who suffers, or also for inflaming others to zeal and imitation, or finally for the glory of God. But complete abandonment takes place only then, when, no kind of salutary remedy having been omitted by God, a man nevertheless remains insensible and uncured, or, to speak more correctly, incurable, through the determination of his own mind; and then he is handed over to final destruction, as was Judas.” ↩