XLII. Avitus of Vienne; Isidore of Seville

Suppose, therefore, I. that it comes into controversy what kind of native disposition and what kind of primary and antecedent relation intervenes between God and men. Unless thou utterly withdrawest faith from the things which we have adduced, this and no other can be the answer: it is a disposition and relation of goodness and paternal mercy, by which God embraces men with the affection of a father in Christ and through Christ.

But which men II.? Absolutely all, as is made known by a fourfold argument and sign. For it is made known by the argument and sign of the solicitous affection which God, the Creator and Author of nature,

implanted in all parents toward their offspring. It is made known by the argument and sign of the universal redemption which he accomplished through the Son. It is made known by the argument and sign of universal grace, of which he deprives no one and which he pours forth abundantly upon all. Finally, it is made known by the argument and sign of the universal revealed will¹, such as appears most lucidly in the Scriptures of both Testaments and in the preaching of the whole Church, which is instructed by the divine Spirit.

Nor III. ought anyone to think it open to him either wholly to deny or to call into doubt this universal benevolence of God toward the human race. For if any have assumed such boldness for themselves, we know that they were marked with the most shameful brand of heresy; for the predestinarians are those who say that God does not create all for this purpose, that all may be saved.

To this IV. universal benevolence must be reckoned as received benefits: a) that the injury inflicted by the fault of Adam was repaired by the redemption of Christ; b) that by the grace of the same Christ, choice, cast down into the servitude of sin, was vindicated into its former liberty; and c) that hope of obtaining salvation was given to all and the occasion of despair removed. These things are no less evident from those which we have reported than they are manifest from those which Avitus of Vienne and Isidore of Seville testify.

For the former, considering these words of Solomon, “As a sour grape is harmful to the teeth,” writes²:

Adam tasted within Paradise, unto his and our destruction, not the wine but the poison of this grape, still rough and green; and because the parents had eaten the sour grape, the teeth of the sons were set on edge. But Ezekiel, foreseeing that the original debt would be canceled when Christ paid it,

says thus³: “As I live, says the Lord, this proverb shall no longer be in Jerusalem: ‘The fathers ate the sour grape, and the teeth of the sons shall be set on edge.’ Whatever Adam was, what he proudly coveted, what he unlawfully presumed, what he incautiously desired, now harms thee not. Fear for thyself the setting on edge of thy teeth from thine own eating; restrain the touch of appetite from useless avidity.”

But Isidore⁴, contending at once both that the wounds were inflicted through Adam and that the medicine was effected through Christ, says:

Finally, through the grace of God, free choice is restored to man, which the first man⁵ had lost. For he had the free choice of beginning good, which nevertheless would be perfected by the help of God. But we receive both the beginning of free choice and its perfection from the grace of God. For from him we have both to begin and to perfect good, from whom both the gift of grace was given and free choice was restored in us.

And upon the words of Genesis, “And God called Adam: Where art thou?” he says:

Here he shows that if any fall from faith or good works into their falsehoods and desires, God does not despise them; but still calls them that they may return⁶ to penance, because he wills not the death of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. Therefore no sinners whatsoever are to despair, since even the impious themselves are summoned to the hope of indulgence.

But if, nevertheless, V. many both despair and perish, this must not be derived from the fact that either God does not will all to be saved or the order of mercy does not anticipate all; but a) because not all will God; b) because men themselves are cruel toward themselves; c) because, having neglected mercy, they kindle against themselves the fury of indignation; and d) because they repel the healing hand of the Savior. For the judgment of God through the prophet⁷ cannot be fallacious: “Destruction is thine own, O Israel; thy help is only in me.”

“As though he were saying,” Isidore adds⁸, “that thou shouldst perish is from thy merit; that thou shouldst be saved is by my aid.” Yet with thee freely cooperating:

For the good which we do is of God, on account of prevenient and subsequent grace; but it is ours, on account of the obedient will of free choice. For if it were not of God, why do we give thanks to him? And if it is not ours, why do we expect the recompense of good works? Therefore, in that we are anticipated by grace, it is of God; but in that, by working well, we follow prevenient grace, it is ours⁹.