(Augustine, Enchiridion. part 5)

mothers die also if the fetuses were left there dead, would seem
much too rash.  But, in any case, once a man begins to live, it is
thereafter possible for him to die.  And, once dead, wheresoever
death overtook him, I cannot find the basis on which he would not
have a share in the resurrection of the dead.
     87.  By the same token, the resurrection is not to be denied
in the cases of monsters which are born and live, even if they
quickly die, nor should we believe that they will be raised as
they were, but rather in an amended nature and free from faults.
Far be it from us to say of that double-limbed man recently born
in the Orient -- about whom most reliable brethren have given
eyewitness reports and the presbyter Jerome, of holy memory, has
left a written account[193] -- far be it from us, I say, to
suppose that at the resurrection there will be one double man, and
not rather two men, as there would have been if they had actually
been born twins.  So also in other cases, which, because of some
excess or defect or gross deformity, are called monsters: at the
resurrection they will be restored to the normal human
physiognomy, so that every soul will have its own body and not two
bodies joined together, even though they were born this way.
Every soul will have, as its own, all that is required to complete
a whole human body.
     88.  Moreover, with God, the earthly substance from which the
flesh of mortal man is produced does not perish.  Instead, whether
it be dissolved into dust or ashes, or dispersed into vapors and
the winds, or converted into the substance of other bodies (or
even back into the basic elements themselves), or has served as
food for beasts or even men and been turned into their flesh -- in
an instant of time this matter returns to the soul that first
animated it, and that caused it to become a man, to live and to
     89.  This earthly matter which becomes a corpse upon the
soul's departure will not, at the resurrection, be so restored
that the parts into which it was separated and which have become
parts of other things must necessarily return to the same parts of
the body in which they were situated -- though they do return to
the body from which they were separated.  Otherwise, to suppose
that the hair recovers what frequent clippings have taken off, or
the nails get back what trimming has pared off, makes for a wild
and wholly unbecoming image in the minds of those who speculate
this way and leads them thus to disbelieve in the resurrection.
But take the example of a statue made of fusible metal: if it were
melted by heat or pounded into dust, or reduced to a shapeless
mass, and an artist wished to restore it again from the mass of
the same material, it would make no difference to the wholeness of
the restored statue which part of it was remade of what part of
the metal, so long as the statue, as restored, had been given all
the material of which it was originally composed.  Just so, God --
an artist who works in marvelous and mysterious ways -- will
restore our bodies, with marvelous and mysterious celerity, out of
the whole of the matter of which it was originally composed.  And
it will make no difference, in the restoration, whether hair
returns to hair and nails to nails, or whether the part of this
original matter that had perished is turned back into flesh and
restored to other parts of the body.  The main thing is that the
providence of the [divine] Artist takes care that nothing
unbecoming will result.
     90.  Nor does it follow that the stature of each person will
be different when brought to life anew because there were
differences in stature when first alive, nor that the lean will be
raised lean or the fat come back to life in their former obesity.
But if this is in the Creator's plan, that each shall retain his
special features and the proper and recognizable likeness of his
former self -- while an equality of physical endowment will be
preserved -- then the matter of which each resurrection body is
composed will be so disposed that none shall be lost, and any
defect will be supplied by Him who can create out of nothing as he
     But if in the bodies of those rising again there is to be an
intelligible inequality, such as between voices that fill out a
chorus, this will be managed by disposing the matter of each body
so to bring men into their place in the angelic band and impose
nothing on their senses that is inharmonious.  For surely nothing
unseemly will be there, and whatever is there will be fitting, and
this because the unfitting will simply not be.
     91.  The bodies of the saints, then, shall rise again free
from blemish and deformity, just as they will be also free from
corruption, encumbrance, or handicap.  Their facility [facilitas]
will be as complete as their felicity [felicitas].  This is why
their bodies are called "spiritual," though undoubtedly they will
be bodies and not spirits.  For just as now the body is called
"animate" [animale], though it is a body and not a "spirit"
[anima], so then it will be a "spiritual body," but still a body
and not a spirit.
     Accordingly, then, as far as the corruption which weighs down
the soul and the vices through which "the flesh lusts against the
spirit"[194] are concerned, there will be no "flesh," but only
body, since there are bodies that are called "heavenly
bodies."[195]  This is why it is said, "Flesh and blood shall not
inherit the Kingdom of God," and then, as if to expound what was
said, it adds, "Neither shall corruption inherit
incorruption."[196]  What the writer first called "flesh and
blood" he later called "corruption," and what he first called "the
Kingdom of God" he then later called "incorruption."
     But, as far as the substance of the resurrection body is
concerned, it will even then still be "flesh." This is why the
body of Christ is called "flesh" even after the resurrection.
Wherefore the apostle also says, "What is sown a natural body
[corpus animale] rises as a spiritual body [corpus
spirituale]."[197]  For there will then be such a concord between
flesh and spirit -- the spirit quickening the servant flesh
without any need of sustenance therefrom -- that there will be no
further conflict within ourselves.  And just as there will be no
more external enemies to bear with, so neither shall we have to
bear with ourselves as enemies within.
     92.  But whoever are not liberated from that mass of
perdition (brought to pass through the first man) by the one
Mediator between God and man, they will also rise again, each in
his own flesh, but only that they may be punished together with
the devil and his angels.  Whether these men will rise again with
all their faults and deformities, with their diseased and deformed
members -- is there any reason for us to labor such a question?
For obviously the uncertainty about their bodily form and beauty
need not weary us, since their damnation is certain and eternal.
And let us not be moved to inquire how their body can be
incorruptible if it can suffer -- or corruptible if it cannot die.
For there is no true life unless it be lived in happiness; no true
incorruptibility save where health is unscathed by pain.  But
where an unhappy being is not allowed to die, then death itself,
so to say, dies not; and where pain perpetually afflicts but never
destroys, corruption goes on endlessly.  This state is called, in
the Scripture, "the second death."[198]
     93.  Yet neither the first death, in which the soul is
compelled to leave its body, nor the second death, in which it is
not allowed to leave the body undergoing punishment, would have
befallen man if no one had sinned.  Surely, the lightest of all
punishments will be laid on those who have added no further sin to
that originally contracted.  Among the rest, who have added
further Sins to that one, they will suffer a damnation somewhat
more tolerable in proportion to the lesser degree of their

                         CHAPTER XXIV

       The Solution to Present Spiritual Enigmas to Be
           Awaited in the Life of the World To Come

     94.  And thus it will be that while the reprobated angels and
men go on in their eternal punishment, the saints will go on
learning more fully the blessings which grace has bestowed upon
them.  Then, through the actual realities of their experience,
they will see more clearly the meaning of what is written in The
Psalms: "I will sing to thee of mercy and judgment, O Lord"[199]
-- since no one is set free save by unmerited mercy and no one is
damned save by a merited condemnation.
     95.  Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of
two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned
through God's judgment -- and when the chosen one knows what would
have been his just deserts in judgment -- why was the one chosen
rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same?
Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain
people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works,
while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not
about to believe.  For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you,
Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida.  For if in Tyre and Sidon had
been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."[200]  Now, obviously,
God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even
though they could have been saved, if he willed it so.[201]
     Then, in the clearest light of wisdom, will be seen what now
the pious hold by faith, not yet grasping it in clear
understanding -- how certain, immutable, and effectual is the will
of God, how there are things he can do but doth not will to do,
yet willeth nothing he cannot do, and how true is what is sung in
the psalm: "But our God is above in heaven; in heaven and on earth
he hath done all things whatsoever that he would."[202]  This
obviously is not true, if there is anything that he willed to do
and did not do, or, what were worse, if he did not do something
because man's will prevented him, the Omnipotent, from doing what
he willed.  Nothing, therefore, happens unless the Omnipotent
wills it to happen.  He either allows it to happen or he actually
causes it to happen.
     96.  Nor should we doubt that God doth well, even when he
alloweth whatever happens ill to happen.  For he alloweth it only
through a just judgment -- and surely all that is just is good.
Therefore, although evil, in so far as it is evil, is not good,
still it is a good thing that not only good things exist but evil
as well.  For if it were not good that evil things exist, they
would certainly not be allowed to exist by the Omnipotent Good,
for whom it is undoubtedly as easy not to allow to exist what he
does not will, as it is for him to do what he does will.
     Unless we believe this, the very beginning of our Confession
of Faith is imperiled -- the sentence in which we profess to
believe in God the Father Almighty.  For he is called Almighty for
no other reason than that he can do whatsoever he willeth and
because the efficacy of his omnipotent will is not impeded by the
will of any creature.
     97.  Accordingly, we must now inquire about the meaning of
what was said most truly by the apostle concerning God, "Who
willeth that all men should be saved."[203]  For since not all --
not even a majority -- _are_ saved, it would indeed appear that
the fact that what God willeth to happen does not happen is due to
an embargo on God's will by the human will.
     Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the
customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it."
But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the
power of willing or not willing.  For, if we could attribute to
their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they
resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they
were saved against their will.  But the Lord's language is clearer
when, in the Gospel, he reproveth the unrighteous city: "How
often," he saith, "would I have gathered your children together,
as a hen gathers her chicks, and you would not."[204]  This sounds
as if God's will had been overcome by human wills and as if the
weakest, by not willing, impeded the Most Powerful so that he
could not do what he willed.  And where is that omnipotence by
which "whatsoever he willed in heaven and on earth, he has done,"
if he willed to gather the children of Jerusalem together, and did
not do so?  Or, is it not rather the case that, although Jerusalem
did not will that her children be gathered together by him, yet,
despite her unwillingness, God did indeed gather together those
children of hers whom he would?  It is not that "in heaven and on
earth" he hath willed and done some things, and willed other
things and not done them.  Instead, "all things whatsoever he
willed, he hath done."

                         CHAPTER XXV

           Predestination and the Justice of God

     98.  Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say
that God cannot turn the evil wills of men -- as he willeth, when
he willeth, and where he willeth -- toward the good?  But, when he
acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is
through justice.  For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom
he willeth, he hardeneth."[205]
     Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of
which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in
Rebecca's womb: "Before they had yet been born, or had done
anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God
might continue -- not through works but through the divine calling
-- it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'
"[206] Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where
it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated."[207]  Then,
realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding
could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What
therefore shall we say to this?  Is there unrighteousness in God?
God forbid!"[208]  Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit
derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate
the other.  Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that
there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the
other -- which God, of course, foreknew -- he would never have
said "not of good works" but rather "of _future_ works." Thus he
would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left
no difficulty to be solved.  As it is, however, when he went on to
exclaim, "God forbid!" -- that is, "God forbid that there should
be unfairness in God" -- he proceeds immediately to add (to prove
that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to
Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will
show pity to whom I will show pity.'"[209] Now, who but a fool
would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on
the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving?  Finally,
the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question
of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing
     Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath,"[211]
not because of any works of their own, but because they were both
bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam.  But
He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved
Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice.
Since this judgment [of wrath] was due them both, the former
learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had
not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no
ground to boast of his own distinctive merits -- but, instead,
that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it
is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of
God's showing mercy."[212]  And, indeed, the whole visage of
Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its
countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and
salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he
who glories, should glory in the Lord."[213]
     99.  Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in
saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him
who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to
speak also of his judgment -- for where his mercy is not shown, it
is not unfairness but justice.  For with God there is no
injustice.  Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to
Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show
through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all
the earth."[214]  Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion
that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment:
"Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom
he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great
goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all.  In this way,
neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any
merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for
complaining of anything except what he has fully merited.  For
grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been
mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a
common cause which leads back to their common origin.  But if any
man hears this in such a way as to say: "Why then does he find
fault?  For who resists his will?"[215] -- as if to make it seem
that man should not therefore be blamed for being evil _because_
God "hath mercy on whom he willeth and whom he willeth he
hardeneth" -- God forbid that we should be ashamed to give the
same reply as we see the apostle giving: "O man, who are you to
reply to God?  Does the molded object say to the molder, 'Why have
you made me like this?'  Or is not the potter master of his clay,
to make from the same mass one vessel for honorable, another for
ignoble, use?"[216]
     There are some stupid men who think that in this part of the
argument the apostle had no answer to give; and, for lack of a
reasonable rejoinder, simply rebuked the audacity of his
gainsayer.  But what he said -- "O man, who are you?" -- has
actually great weight and in an argument like this recalls man, in
a single word, to consider the limits of his capacity and, at the
same time, supplies an important explanation.
     For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to
talk back to God?  And if one does understand, he finds no better
ground even then for talking back.  For if he understands, he sees
that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a
divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the
race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's
justice.  And he also sees that those who are saved had to be
saved on such terms that it would show -- by contrast with the
greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their
wholly just damnation -- what the whole mass deserved and to what
end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his
undeserved mercy interposed.  Thus every mouth of those disposed
to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that
glories may glory in the Lord."[217]

                         CHAPTER XXVI

            The Triumph of God's Sovereign Good Will

     100.  These are "the great works of the Lord, well-considered
in all his acts of will"[218] -- and so wisely well-considered
that when his angelic and human creation sinned (that is, did not
do what he willed, but what it willed) he could still accomplish
what he himself had willed and this through the same creaturely
will by which the first act contrary to the Creator's will had
been done.  As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds,
for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to
punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully
predestined to grace.
     For, as far as they were concerned, they did what God did not
will that they do, but as far as God's omnipotence is concerned,
they were quite unable to achieve their purpose.  In their very
act of going against his will, his will was thereby accomplished.
This is the meaning of the statement, "The works of the Lord are
great, well-considered in all his acts of will" -- that in a
strange and ineffable fashion even that which is done against his
will is not done without his will.  For it would not be done
without his allowing it -- and surely his permission is not
unwilling but willing -- nor would he who is good allow the evil
to be done, unless in his omnipotence he could bring good even out
of evil.
     101.  Sometimes, however, a man of good will wills something
that God doth not will, even though God's will is much more, and
much more certainly, good -- for under no circumstances can it
ever be evil.  For example, it is a good son's will that his
father live, whereas it is God's good will that he should die.
Or, again, it can happen that a man of evil will can will
something that God also willeth with a good will -- as, for
example, a bad son wills that his father die and this is also
God's will.  Of course, the former wills what God doth not will,
whereas the latter does will what God willeth.  Yet the piety of
the one, though he wills not what God willeth, is more consonant
with God's will than is the impiety of the other, who wills the
same thing that God willeth.  There is a very great difference
between what is fitting for man to will and what is fitting for
God -- and also between the ends to which a man directs his will
-- and this difference determines whether an act of will is to be
approved or disapproved.  Actually, God achieveth some of his
purposes -- which are, of course, all good -- through the evil
wills of bad men.  For example, it was through the ill will of the
Jews that, by the good will of the Father, Christ was slain for us
-- a deed so good that when the apostle Peter would have nullified
it he was called "Satan" by him who had come in order to be
slain.[219]  How good seemed the purposes of the pious faithful
who were unwilling that the apostle Paul should go to Jerusalem,
lest there he should suffer the things that the prophet Agabus had
predicted![220]  And yet God had willed that he should suffer
these things for the sake of the preaching of Christ, and for the
training of a martyr for Christ.  And this good purpose of his he
achieved, not through the good will of the Christians, but through
the ill will of the Jews.  Yet they were more fully his who did
not will what he willed than were those who were willing
instruments of his purpose -- for while he and the latter did the
very same thing, he worked through them with a good will, whereas
they did his good will with their ill will.
     102.  But, however strong the wills either of angels or of
men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or
will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always
undefeated.  And this will can never be evil, because even when it
inflicts evils, it is still just; and obviously what is just is
not evil.  Therefore, whether through pity "he hath mercy on whom
he willeth," or in justice "whom he willeth, he hardeneth," the
omnipotent God never doth anything except what he doth will, and
doth everything that he willeth.

                        CHAPTER XXVII

          Limits of God's Plan for Human Salvation

     103.  Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture
that God "willeth that all men should be saved,"[221] although we
know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that
account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God.  Rather, we
must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be
saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his
salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not
will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it.  Moreover,
his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then
what he willeth must necessarily be.  And, indeed, it was of
prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that
statement.  Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the
Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man."[222]  This means
that there is no man who is enlightened except by God.
     In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men
to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation
he doth not will -- he who was unwilling to work miracles among
those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them --
but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in
every single group into which it can be divided: kings and
subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the
learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the
dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class;
males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults
and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all
the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills
and minds and all the other things that differentiate people.  For
from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from
every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our
Lord?  Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot
will in vain, whatsoever he willeth.
     Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered
"for all men"[223] and especially "for kings and all those of
exalted station,"[224] whose worldly pomp and pride could be
supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility
of the Christian faith.  Then, continuing his argument, "for this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour"[225]--
that is, to pray even for such as these [kings] -- the apostle, to
remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men
be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."[226]  Truly,
then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the
lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted -- a
paradox we have already seen exemplified.  Our Lord also useth the
same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the
Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb."[227]
Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others,
nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands.  Therefore,
just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of
herb," so also we can interpret "all men" to mean "all kinds of
men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we
are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed
anything to be done which was not done.  "He hath done all things
in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed,"[228] as Truth sings of
him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not
done.  There must be no equivocation on this point.

                        CHAPTER XXVIII

                      The Destiny of Man

     104.  Consequently, God would have willed to preserve even
the first man in that state of salvation in which he was created
and would have brought him in due season, after the begetting of
children, to a better state without the intervention of death --
where he not only would have been unable to sin, but would not
have had even the will to sin -- if he had foreknown that man
would have had a steadfast will to continue without sin, as he had
been created to do.  But since he did foreknow that man would make
bad use of his free will -- that is, that he would sin -- God
prearranged his own purpose so that he could do good to man, even
in man's doing evil, and so that the good will of the Omnipotent
should be nullified by the bad will of men, but should nonetheless
be fulfilled.
     105.  Thus it was fitting that man should be created, in the
first place, so that he could will both good and evil -- not
without reward, if he willed the good; not without punishment, if
he willed the evil.  But in the future life he will not have the
power to will evil; and yet this will not thereby restrict his
free will.  Indeed, his will will be much freer, because he will
then have no power whatever to serve sin.  For we surely ought not
to find fault with such a will, nor say it is no will, or that it
is not rightly called free, when we so desire happiness that we
not only are unwilling to be miserable, but have no power
whatsoever to will it.
     And, just as in our present state, our soul is unable to will
unhappiness for ourselves, so then it will be forever unable to
will iniquity.  But the ordered course of God's plan was not to be
passed by, wherein he willed to show how good the rational
creature is that is able not to sin, although one unable to sin is
better.[229]  So, too, it was an inferior order of immortality --
but yet it was immortality -- in which man was capable of not
dying, even if the higher order which is to be is one in which man
will be incapable of dying.[230]
     106.  Human nature lost the former kind of immortality
through the misuse of free will.  It is to receive the latter
through grace -- though it was to have obtained it through merit,
if it had not sinned.  Not even then, however, could there have
been any merit without grace.  For although sin had its origin in
free will alone, still free will would not have been sufficient to
maintain justice, save as divine aid had been afforded man, in the
gift of participation in the immutable good.  Thus, for example,
the power to die when he wills it is in a man's own hands -- since
there is no one who could not kill himself by not eating (not to
mention other means).  But the bare will is not sufficient for
maintaining life, if the aids of food and other means of
preservation are lacking.
     Similarly, man in paradise was capable of self-destruction by
abandoning justice by an act of will; yet if the life of justice
was to be maintained, his will alone would not have sufficed,
unless He who made him had given him aid.  But, after the Fall,
God's mercy was even more abundant, for then the will itself had
to be freed from the bondage in which sin and death are the
masters.  There is no way at all by which it can be freed by
itself, but only through God's grace, which is made effectual in
the faith of Christ.  Thus, as it is written, even the will by
which "the will itself is prepared by the Lord"[231] so that we
may receive the other gifts of God through which we come to the
Gift eternal -- this too comes from God.
     107.  Accordingly, even the life eternal, which is surely the
wages of good works, is called a _gift_ of God by the apostle.
"For the wages of sin," he says, "is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."[232]  Now, wages for
military service are paid as a just debit, not as a gift.  Hence,
he said "the wages of sin is death," to show that death was not an
unmerited pun ishment for sin but a just debit.  But a gift,
unless it be gratuitous, is not grace.  We are, therefore, to
understand that even man's merited goods are gifts from God, and
when life eternal is given through them, what else do we have but
"grace upon grace returned"[233]?
     Man was, therefore, made upright, and in such a fashion that
he could either continue in that uprightness -- though not without
divine aid -- or become perverted by his own choice.  Whichever of
these two man had chosen, God's will would be done, either by man
or at least _concerning_ him.  Wherefore, since man chose to do
his own will instead of God's, God's will _concerning_ him was
done; for, from the same mass of perdition that flowed out of that
common source, God maketh "one vessel for honorable, another for
ignoble use"[234]; the ones for honorable use through his mercy,
the ones for ignoble use through his judgment; lest anyone glory

(continued in part 6...)

file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-01: agenc-05.txt