Moreover, this Christian doctrine concerning universal redemption through—
—Christ was so widely disseminated among the people that the gentiles abused it against the Christians themselves. For Arnobius presents them arguing thus1:
But if, they say, Christ was sent by God for this purpose, that he might free unhappy souls from the destruction of annihilation, what did former ages merit, which before his advent were consumed under the condition of mortality?
After other things, Arnobius indeed replies2:
Royal compassion was imparted to them also, and divine benefits coursed equally through all: they were preserved, they were liberated, and they put away the lot and condition of mortality. By what manner, which ones, when? If arrogance, if pride, if haughtiness were absent from you, you could long ago have known this from him as authority.
But when they cry out against him and ask anew, “But if Christ, as you say, came as the preserver of the human race, why does he not free absolutely all with equal munificence?” Arnobius persists in his opinion3 and blunts the edge of the question, saying:
Does he not free equally, who calls all equally? Or does he repulse or despise anyone from princely indulgence, who gives to the high, the low, slaves, women, and children alike the power of coming to himself? The fountain of life, he says, lies open to all, nor is anyone prohibited or driven away from the right of drinking. If there is such great disdain in you that you reject the benefit of the gift offered—nay rather, if you are so preeminent in wisdom that you call the things offered by Christ sport and follies—in what does the one inviting you sin against you, whose sole part is to expose the fruit of his benignity under the judgment of your own right? God, Plato says, is the cause to no one of choosing the lot of life; nor can the will of another rightly be ascribed to anyone, since freedom of the will is placed in the power of the very person who wills. Or must you be begged to deign to accept from him the benefit of salvation, and, while you spurn it and flee farthest away, is the grace of divine benevolence to be poured into your bosom? Do you wish to take what is offered and convert it to your own uses? You will have consulted for yourself. Do you spurn, contemn, and—
—despise it? You will have deprived yourself of the advantage of the gift. God imposes necessity upon no one; he terrifies no one with imperious fear. For our salvation is not necessary to him, so that he would suffer some gain or loss if he either made us gods or permitted us to be reduced to nothing by the dissolution of corruption.
Although these things might appear able to suffice abundantly for resolving the question, Arnobius nevertheless proposes another ἔνστασιν, objection4, in these words:
Indeed, he says, if God is powerful, merciful, a preserver, let him convert our minds for us and make us, even unwilling, believe his promises.
To this he immediately replies5:
This, therefore, is violence, not grace; nor is it the liberality of God the prince, but a childish contest and striving of the mind for victory. For what is so unjust as to extort wills into the contrary from those who resist and are unwilling, to force upon their minds what they do not will and what they flee? To harm before you benefit, and, after taking away the former disposition, to transfer them into another habit and opinion? You who desire to be changed and to suffer force, so that you do unwillingly and seize by compulsion: why do you refuse to assume by will that which, once turned and changed, you desire to do? “I do not will,” he says, “and I have no will.” Why, therefore, do you accuse God, as though he failed you? You desire him to bring aid to you, whose gifts and favors you not only spurn and flee, but even call empty words and pursue with jocular witticisms.
Therefore, if I shall not be a Christian, shall I be unable to have the hope of salvation? It is so, as you yourself propose. For he alone has it enjoined and handed down from God the Father to give the portions of salvation and to confer upon souls what is fitting and necessary to be bestowed, the remote and interior causes being so constituted. For just as particular gods among you have particular protections, permissions, and powers, and you do not ask from any of them that which is not within his power and permission, so it is the pontificate6 of Christ alone—
—to give salvation to souls and to impart the spirit of perpetuity.
The matter, therefore, was not only most widely known, but also received by the suffrage and consent of all: that Christ came, poured forth his divine blood, and tasted death, that he might free unhappy souls from the destruction of annihilation, give them salvation, and impart to them the spirit of perpetuity. Moreover, he adorned not merely some souls, but all, with these benefits; nor only after his advent, but throughout absolutely all ages, since royal compassion was always present to all and divine benefits coursed equally through all.
Why, therefore, did not all either attain salvation formerly or attain it now? Must this be derived from the fact that God through Christ does not call all and does not impart to all the opportunity and faculty of conquering sin and obtaining beatitude? By no means, Arnobius replies. For all are called; no one is repulsed from princely indulgence; God gives to all the power of coming to him; the fountain of life lies open to all; and no one is prohibited or driven away from the right of drinking. What, then, at last is the cause on account of which not all come, nor do all extinguish their thirst by drinking from the salutary fountain? Because, according to the same Arnobius, it belongs to God to offer the benefit, but to man freely to take it and convert it to his own uses; because it belongs to God to expose his benignity to all, but to man freely to take fruit from it and enjoy the advantage of the gift.
It pleased God, indeed, to establish beforehand such a fellowship and conjunction of things that the attainment of immortal felicity should be no less a gift of mercy than an effect of free cooperation, and should be no less the grace of God anticipating and aiding than the crown of him who contends and toils. It pleased God that his gifts should pass over into our merits; and it likewise pleased him that no one in possession of himself and of reason should be blessed with the desired end of the eudaimonic order who had not fulfilled the precepts and laws of the moral order.