LV. The thesis itself is refuted

In addition to these things, II. we understand, not from one or another passage but from the whole work On the Calling, that its author was

exceedingly hostile to the Pelagians and no less so to the Semipelagians. For no thesis of theirs can be brought forward whose antithesis he did not establish and vindicate most diligently. Let the following be by way of examples.

There is¹ among some an unsound distinction between the will and the grace of God; they think that free choice is denied by the preaching of grace, and they do not observe that by the same rule it can be objected to them that they deny grace, since they will it to be not the leader but the companion of the human will. For the will is removed unless it is itself the origin of true virtues; grace is removed unless it is itself the cause of good merits.

Good² will is the first germ of all virtues. Resting upon its origin, it rests in that eternal and immutable will, so that it may truly be spiritual³; for⁴ “he who adheres to God is one spirit,” since through the communion of the one illuminating and the one illuminated, of the one justifying and the one justified, of the one ruling and the one subject, every action is referred to one; and that which is referred to one belongs to both, because neither can that which he gave be alienated from God, nor that which he received from man.

Therefore let not human nature⁵ trust in its own powers, which did not stand even when they were unimpaired; but let it seek victory through him who alone was not conquered and who conquered for all. And if it seeks, let it not doubt that it received from him whom it seeks the affection of seeking. Nor, because it is actuated by the Spirit of God, let it therefore think that it does not have free choice, which it did not lose even then when by its will it gave itself to the devil, by whom⁶ the judgment of the will was depraved, not taken away.

Mortal man⁷, born carnally from an origin condemned in Adam, does not attain to the spiritual dignity of the new race unless the Holy Spirit rules him. But neither does he seek this with any desire if he has not received from God the ardor of that desire.

Neither the learned⁸ nor the unlearned, of whatever stock or order, are led to God by human reason; but every man who is converted to God is first moved by the grace of God. For he is not a light to himself, nor does he kindle his heart by a ray of his own light. For if blessed John, than whom no greater among men was born, was not the light, because he did not shine by his own splendor, but had received from that⁹ true light which illuminates every man coming into this world that he might be a light, who will that man be who, with the voice of a teacher sounding outwardly alone, has this much from grace—that he heard—and everything from the will—that he believed? If it were so, there would be no difference between grace and the law, nor would the spirit of indulgence give life to anyone if the letter that kills remained.

For all men¹⁰, of whatever nation and race, of whatever condition and age, the will of God is the cause of receiving grace; with it the rationale of election is hidden, their merits beginning from that grace which they received without merits.

By the testimonies of the Scriptures it is most manifest¹¹ that every good merit of man, from the beginning of faith even to the consummation of perseverance, is a divine gift and work.

Abundantly,¹² as I judge, it has been demonstrated by these testimonies that the faith by which the impious man is justified is not possessed except from the gift of God, and is bestowed for no preceding merits, but is given for this purpose: that it may be the beginning of merits; and when faith itself has been given though not requested, the other good things may now be conferred through its petitions.

Can it now readily be believed that a master of the Churches and distinguished vanquisher alike of the Pelagians and Semipelagians fell

into that very capital crime which stirred up such great odium against them from the whole Catholic name and caused those same men to be reckoned in the number of heretics? Assuredly, not only is it not easy to believe this, but it cannot be believed at all. Yet nothing is more manifest from the history¹³ of each sect than that among the graver crimes contracted by them this must be commemorated: that the Pelagians no less than the Semipelagians perverted the sincere nature of grace and, having wrested its appellation from the biblical and ecclesiastical sense, signified by it manifold external doctrine and instruction necessary either for attaining salvation or for believing.

Of this matter¹⁴ the synods celebrated in Africa and in Gaul are ample witnesses, as are the Roman Pontiffs¹⁵ Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, Sixtus, Leo, and Gelasius, and then all those who in the fifth and subsequent centuries contended for the Catholic cause against each sect in published works. For the concordant voice and opinion of all these was that the law, doctrine, and the other external aids of God can indeed¹⁶

be distinguished by the most noble name of grace; indeed, that it is lawful that nature itself and free choice also be endowed with the same name¹⁷. Nevertheless, according to the norm of the Catholic profession, it is necessary to confess in addition that nothing pertaining to salvation can be furnished by men unless interior instruction accedes and the Spirit of God works in us even the willing. “If this grace,” Augustine says¹⁸,

is to be called instruction, assuredly let it be so called that God may be believed to infuse it more deeply and inwardly with ineffable sweetness, not only through those who plant and water outwardly, but also through himself, who ministers his increase more secretly, so that he not only shows the truth but also imparts charity.

This indeed¹⁹:

Exceeds human lowliness, exceeds angelic sublimity, and pertains absolutely to none but the Trinity who cultivates.

Which alone²⁰:

Has her chair in the heavens and teaches truth inwardly.

Wherefore²¹:

It must be held most firmly and in no way doubted that a man whom neither ignorance of letters nor any weakness or adversity prevents can indeed either read the words of the holy law and the Gospel or hear them from the mouth of some preacher; but no one can obey the divine commandments unless divine grace has prevented him, so that what he hears with the body he may also perceive with the heart, and, having received from God the will and power, may both will and be able to do the commandments of God.

For this reason it is written in John²² concerning the Holy Spirit, “He will teach you all things,” because, Thomas adds²³:

Whatever a man may teach outwardly, unless the Holy Spirit inwardly gives understanding, he labors in vain; because, unless the Spirit is present to the heart of the hearer, the discourse of the teacher will be idle.

What, therefore, ought to be gathered if, the hypothesis of Quesnel having been admitted, we granted that no universal grace other than external grace was admitted and defended by the author of the work On the Calling? It would have to be gathered either that his discourse was not concerning a grace which is necessary and sufficient for receiving faith and acquiring salvation, or that he had colluded with the Pelagians and Semipelagians in the signification assigned to the term grace. But no one would suspect the latter except against every appearance of probability, while the former is most lucidly refuted on every page of the work. For on every page of the work it is repeated that the discourse concerns that universal grace which God therefore always dispensed to absolutely all men because he always and most sincerely willed the salvation of absolutely all men. Therefore Quesnel’s hypothesis is false, nor can it be affirmed in any way that the universal grace defended by the author of the work On the Calling is circumscribed by the scope of those aids which instruct only outwardly and assist only outwardly.