In Chananaeam et Pharaonem

On the Canaanite Woman and on Pharaoh, and that it is not of the one who wills nor of the one who runs, but of the merciful God. Even though the disturbance at evening troubled us, the eagerness of all delighted me. For I did not look at the unevenness of the commotions, but at the zeal of the hearers; and I saw that the commotion was vulgar and common, but the eagerness was inspired and virtuous—so to speak, that the hands were the hands of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob. For the commotion was common, but the zeal was inspired. One must not at all be at odds with the clamor of those who are eager, but look to the zeal of the hearers. For indeed the Canaanite woman cried out against the Savior, but he did not look at the disturbed nature of her cry, but at the earnestness of her mind. She cried out, then, as you have just heard, following the master’s footsteps, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” Oh, the faith of the Gentiles! Oh, the ingratitude of the Jews! The Canaanite woman, cut off from the race of Israel, neither raised with the Law nor living with the prophets, proclaims the truth, saying, “Son of David, have mercy on me”; but those raised with the Law and having heard the prophets, having denied the truth, champion falsehood, saying, “We do not know him; he is a Samaritan and has a demon.” Oh, the faith of the Gentiles! Oh, the ingratitude of the Israelites! See how the God and master of all honors the race. It is not good to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs. He calls the Gentiles dogs and the Israelites sons; but the honor is reversed by the people.

And those who are honored dishonor, while those who are dishonored do obeisance; those called sons do not accept the benefaction, but the Canaanite woman, called a dog, does not depart from her benefactor. For this reason the Savior called the woman a dog, not to insult her, but to lay bare her intention, that the Gentiles, even when insulted, do not abandon their benefactor, while Israel, even when benefited, denied the Savior. "Son of David, have mercy on me." And the one who hears all is silent, not dismissing her entreaty, but revealing her faith more brightly. Canaanite by race, but a daughter of Abraham in faith. "Son of David, have mercy on me." And the one who heeds the supplications of souls before the cry of mouths is silent and endures; and he was thought by the apostles to be somewhat harsh, dismissing such a great supplication. And the disciples said to him: "Send her away, for she is crying out behind us." Are you then, Peter, or you, Andrew, or Philip, more philanthropic than the Savior? Did the entreaty bend you, but did the supplication not move him? So you judge by appearances, but I judge by intentions; I postpone and delay the grace, so that I may lay bare her splendid faith. "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Then are you a shepherd of the Israelites, not the master and shepherd and governor and provider of the whole earth? He did not say, "I am not the shepherd of the others," but, "I was not sent for this"; he does not say this truly, but by the pretense he lays bare the faith.

For if you were not sent elsewhere, but to the sheep of the house of Israel, how do you send the apostles to the ends of the earth, saying, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them"? If you were not sent to the other sheep, but to those of Israel, how did you say to the apostles, "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold, and I must gather them together, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd"? So then, he is not speaking to the exact truth of the matter at this point, but to the testing of the soul. "I was not sent." He denies the fact, and the woman does not flee from her entreaty; he shakes off her supplication, and she does not shake off her prostration before him. Truly the Canaanite woman is an image of the Church, tested in dangers and not denying the Lord, enduring countless storms and keeping her eye on the harbor of faith, buffeted by countless waves of heretics and not shaken from her steadfast faith. Compare the faith of the Church and the ingratitude of the Jews. The Jews, eating manna, murmur; the Church, fasting, gives thanks to the Lord. They, honored, are ungrateful; the followers of Christ, persecuted, give thanks. Which servant do you accept, if you are a master? Of two servants, which do you accept—the one who is ungrateful after benefactions, or the one who is grateful under discipline? So then, the Canaanite woman is an image of this Church, sent away and not denying the Lord. She prostrates herself before him, saying, "Lord, help me." For she first said:

Son of David, have mercy on me," she thought, because she had brought a supplication less than her worth, she recalls her first utterance, and with a second act of gratitude she covers the first. For she no longer calls him "Son of David," but "Lord," saying, "Lord, help me." And he himself does not answer, but the apostles are troubled at the voice, saying, "Someone is crying out behind us." God delays, looking to her faith, and says to her, "It is not good to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs," calling the Israelites "children," not so much honoring them as reproaching them for their ingratitude. For the one who today calls the Israelites "children" is the son of the one who says, "I begot sons and raised them high, but they rejected me." The Canaanite woman is called a dog, and she bears the insult with grace. Yet I think and believe that in this insult he placed the image of goodwill, "dog," showing the loyalty of the animal. A dog, suffering countless things, does not leave its master's house; a dog, when it sees its master's footsteps, is silent; when it sees the master's slaves, it is quiet; but when it sees strangers, it is agitated, it barks, it does not rest, looking at no one else. How do the Jews see countless blasphemies against God and not become disturbed? See a Christian hearing heretical blasphemy or another error and immediately becoming agitated, barking, crying out against the opponents. A Christian cannot bear to see a foreign face, but like a dog barks at the master's gate.

Even those outside the faith, the philosophers, embraced the appellation of dogs because of the animal's goodwill, and they were not ashamed of the name, but looked to the goodwill of its nature. That God accepts the one who barks for piety, and blames the one who is silent and does not bark for the truth, he says concerning the Israelites: "All dogs are mute, unable to bark." A dog is called a soul that is well-disposed to its master, and barks for its master, not being insulted. When a dog goes mad, it has this one sign of madness: when it bares its teeth against its master. For a sane dog never rages against its master. Nothing else proves the madness of the Jews than their barking against the Savior. For they ought to have recognized God as master, but they cast him off as a stranger. Hence he accuses them, saying: "Many dogs have surrounded me." And who are the dogs? "A gathering of evildoers has encompassed me." So the Canaanite woman does not reject the insult, but accepts it with gratitude. It is not good to take the bread of children and throw it to the little dogs. But she, constructing philanthropy from the insult, says: "Yes, Lord, for even the little dogs eat from the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. Do not pity me as a child, but have mercy on me as a dog; I accept your insult, Master." For any honor is inferior to the insult from you, any glory is lesser. So that the Savior might finally show that he did not call her a dog insultingly when he exposed her gratitude, he then says: "O woman, great is your faith; let it be as you wish.

I do not know how to praise the faith which the Savior called great. For what better commendation can I conceive than that which was given by the Savior himself? Let us leave the word intact; let us not insult it with our own praises. Let us not make the great small. For human praise diminishes things, but the voice of God bears witness to things. Their praise, it is said, comes not from men, but from God. Why, then, did those possessed by demons call upon the Savior for help? "Son of David, have mercy on me." Does the kinship of David have authority over demons? Whence, then, does the prophet cry out, saying, "Son of David, have mercy on me"? And the Canaanite woman, bringing her demon-possessed daughter, to say, "Son of David, have mercy on me"? The historical account has been handed down, that David, plucking the holy lyre in sequence, drove the demon from Saul. Since, then, David also drove out demons through musical activity—not human music, but divine, plucked from the Holy Spirit—they, taking a title from his kinship, say, "Son of David, have mercy on me." Nevertheless, one must not cling to this word, but be guided to that one, and be led up to the true worth. Her child was healed from that hour. For the voice of God, having come, healed the child; the voice of the Savior banishes demons, drives away every hostile condition.

But these things we have said concerning the grace of the Gospel, not as much as ought to be said, but as much as we are able to say. Since we are not sufficient for what we owe, let us come to the promise, so that by putting off from day to day we do not dull the desire of those who long to hear. It is time, therefore, for me to take up the undertaking and for you to render the debt of your hearing. The discussion was about Pharaoh: how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and about that saying, “Whom he wishes he pities, whom he wishes he hardens.” You will say to me, then, “Why does he still blame? For who has resisted his will?” But those who touch upon divine thoughts and those who hear must not immediately go straight to the interpretation itself, lest the meaning seem forced, but must take up the subject from the beginning of the grace of the Gospel. Thus, from the sequence, I may deliver the theory clearly and without confusion. So, to be brief, I will make this the beginning of my discourse. Paul writes to the Romans, exhorting many other things, but especially correcting a matter that involved much disturbance and much disorder. And hear how. In Rome, many from among the Jews had come to believe in the Savior, and many from among the Gentiles also believed. But there was strife and tumult between the parties, not from zeal for piety, but from contentiousness over preeminence. For those from the Gentiles wanted to appear to hold the first place, and those from the Jews also wanted to be first. And those from the Jews brought forward their ancestral nobility and said to those from the Gentiles, “We are more honorable than you.

Our piety is more ancient than yours, and our patriarchs are ours: our Abraham, our Isaac, our Jacob—all the patriarchs and the prophets are ours. We possess ancient nobility, while you have only recently received your benefaction. Those from the Greek party said: "It is not fitting that those who denied Christ should take precedence; it is not fitting that those who fixed the cross and fought against God should be placed in the first rank. For you were cast out, and all the nations were called. We are the ones who seized the benefaction, while you are the ones who insulted it." The apostle, seeing great turmoil and a swelling uproar in Rome, and reflecting that evil which abounds in a great city can be poured out over the whole world beneath heaven, checked the contentiousness as if at its root, so that the contentiousness might not spread from there to the whole earth. Placing himself in the middle, he did the work not of a judge but of a peacemaker, knowing that contentiousness does not establish piety, but piety dissolves all contentiousness. Just as those who wish to quell a fight and uproar do not rebuke one side, lest they inflame the other all the more, but rebuke both this one and that one, so that through the rebuke they may make their counsel acceptable when it produces its effect, so the divine apostle, placing himself in the middle of the combatants, quells both the Jewish clamor and that from the Gentiles. He first attacks the more shameless side, I mean the Jews. For all dogs are shameless, though they cannot bark. The race is shameless—I do not mean by race, but by character.

For it is not low birth that is shameless, but low character. So he attacks this part, or rather he first assails this part, the shameless part, to which Isaiah said: "Your neck is iron and your forehead is bronze." Thus he knew it to be shameless. And the prophet Jeremiah says: "The face of a harlot has come upon you, O Israel; you have been shameless toward all." So the divine apostle first attacks the shameless part, I mean the Jewish part; and since they brought forward the antiquity of the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he shows them that one ought not to pride oneself on birth, but on character. Hence, beginning this discourse, he said: "Not all those from Israel are Israel." Since you offer birth, not showing character, not all those from Israel are Israel. These things are against the Jews. But neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are all children. For it is written that "in Isaac a seed shall be called to you." If birth makes piety, nothing prevented Israel from being honored before Isaac. For he was a son of Isaac. He was a son of Abraham, and an elder son. Therefore, not all those from Israel are Israel, nor, because they are the seed of Abraham, are all children of Abraham; but "in Isaac a seed shall be called to you." And Paul adds the interpretation, that is, that not the children of the flesh are counted for faith, but the children of the promise, these are children of God.

But since it is possible for a Jew to object to this statement and to introduce another shamelessness against the divine proclamation, and to say that Ishmael was rejected because he was the son of a slave woman, while Isaac was preferred because he derived his nobility from a free woman, then Ishmael later introduces a counter-image and says: Not only Isaac, but also Rebecca will have one bed of our father. For before they were born or had done anything good or evil, so that the purpose of God according to choice might remain, not based on works but on the one who calls, it was said to her that the elder will serve the younger. Since you bring forward the low birth of the flesh for contention, I show you two branches split from one root, I show you the one who was disbelieved accepted, and the one who was believed unaccepted. For nature does not insult whom purpose does not insult, so that you may learn that it was said that the elder will serve the younger, just as it is written: I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau. Paul presents these things from a divine voice. For God says through the prophet: Was not Esau a brother to Jacob? For I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau. Since you bring forward nature, he says, what did nature avail Esau? Since the nobility of the fathers exalts you, what more did Esau obtain from the nobility of his father? Was he not a descendant of Abraham? Was he not a son of Isaac? Was he not from the same mother? Was he not from the same freedom? Did his lineage not benefit him, because his character cast him out? Immediately he adds: What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? Far from it. He touched upon the history up to this point.

Now he arms himself against the rising objection. For since many, when another theory is examined, take the inserted remarks as an occasion for slander, the apostle looked not only to the contentiousness of those then fighting, but also to the strife of those who would later arise, whether through Manichaeans or heretics or Greeks who were about to arm themselves against this expression. And anticipating, he prepares the arrows, so that he may store up weapons for you for the peak of the war. For God does not see only the present, but much more he foresees the future. For this reason the word of God is called an arrow and a sword. Isaiah says: He placed me as a sharp sword and hid me in his hand; he placed me as a chosen arrow and sheltered me in his quiver. Why a sword and an arrow? The sword is armed against those standing near, while the arrow is sent also against those standing far off. Since, then, the word of God both destroyed the contentiousness of that time and cut short the quibbles that would later arise, it is called a sword contending against those near and an arrow sent against opponents standing far off. But so that we do not break the sequence of the subject, let us first say those things and then we will come to these. When he had restrained the Jews from taking great pride in their lineage, he immediately touches also upon those who came from the Greeks and says to them: Do not boast against the root. For you, being a wild olive, were cut off from the natural wild olive and were grafted into a cultivated olive. For the one who reads the epistle with precision finds the solution abundant. But let us proceed to the concise points.

He calls the Israelite race a cultivated olive tree, and he restrains those from the nations who were cut off from the wild olive and grafted into the cultivated olive. He calls the race of Abraham a cultivated olive tree, and he restrains those who came from the nations and tasted the sweetness of Abraham and the prophets from thinking highly of themselves. "For was not Israel," he says, "grafted into you? Did you not receive Israel? Did he not receive you? And the apostles—were they not from you? The Savior is from the Jews, not from the nations. From the Jews. Why then are you ignorant of the root of good things and boast? Do you not know that you, being a wild olive, were grafted into a cultivated olive?" But you will surely say to me: "You are taking up again the argument of the objector, that these were broken off because of unbelief, while I was grafted in because of faith." Good. Do not think highly, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either. See the apostolic voice; see the apostolic sinew; see how he cuts out the contentiousness root and branch, both silencing those and shaming these. Do not be elated. But if you boast, it is not you who bear the root, but the root that bears you. Since those from the nations boasted against Israel, as if those were cut off because of their war against God concerning Christ, while they themselves were recalled because of their knowledge, he says to them, so bold: "It is not you who bear the root, but the root that bears you." But you will say: "They were broken off so that I might be grafted in." I agree with your voice in gratitude; I accept your grateful response. Good. But do not think highly, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either.

He who possessed nobility by nature he cast out because of faithlessness; you, who are boastful, he will cast out for the same ingratitude. And see how he expels contentiousness through fear. Observe, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, kindness toward you, if you abide in kindness. For you too will be cut off. See how through fear he cuts off contentiousness and establishes the faithful one, not in contention, but in earnest striving. Why do you meddle with another race? Strive for your own life; be eager to please your benefactor; do not falsify your nobility through your ways. Then he says to those from the nations: Paul was sent to us—not to you Jews, but a herald to the nations. To this utterance Isaiah again applies a saving remedy of piety: Do you boast against me? Yes. Your teacher, and not of the Jews. But learn the precise truth. For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that as long as I am an apostle of the nations, I will glorify my ministry. What does "I will glorify" mean? I commend my ministry by commending the nations. Why do I commend them? So that I might provoke my own flesh to jealousy and save some of them. I admire you in order to incite them to zeal. And by using such words, Paul quenches the burning contentiousness and introduces shining truth. He cuts off the things of contentiousness and introduces the things of concord. But let us come to the matter at hand.

What shall we say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Far from it. For to Moses he says, "I will have mercy on whom I wish, and I will pity whom I pity." Paul does not make this statement from his own person. For it is a sequence of the objection. Paul therefore personifies the objection from the perspective of the opponents. "What shall we say? Is there injustice on the part of God?—Far from it.—saying, 'I will have mercy on whom I wish, and I will pity whom I pity'?" The objection did not receive its full sequence. The "Far from it" is a parenthesis. For before he resolves the contentiousness, he immediately checks the blasphemy. So that no one, while examining the name, might prematurely condemn God, he inserts, like a wise physician, the "Far from it" in the middle, so that by the prohibition of the ill-sounding word he might halt the truth that is being blasphemed. The objector says this: "Concerning Jacob he said, 'I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated.' And to Moses he said, 'I will have mercy on whom I wish, and I will pity whom I pity.' If he has mercy on whom he wishes, and hardens whom he wishes, why does he still blame? For if he himself works this and he himself brings this about, why does he demand an account from me of things which he himself works?" This is the force of the entire objection. For to Moses he says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will pity whom I pity." Therefore, as if from another, the objector, drawing a conclusion from a syllogism, he added, "I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated." And he added also another statement: "He has mercy on whom he wishes; and he hardens whom he wishes." Therefore, as if having drawn the conclusion, the objector says these things: "Therefore it is not of the one who wills, nor of the one who runs, but of the God who has mercy.

If, then, he has mercy on whom he wishes and hardens whom he wishes; if he loves whom he wishes and hates whom he wishes, why do you accuse me? In vain, then, do I bear piety; in vain do I run toward the truth. For it is not of the one who runs, nor of the one who wishes, but of the God who has mercy. All these things are from the person of the objector. And the apostle does not hesitate, then, to resist him strongly, not wishing to confirm the objection, but to dissolve every suspicion of the Gentiles. Therefore, he has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes. He will say to me, then: Why does he still blame? For who has withstood his will? Paul makes a beginning of the response, then, saying: "Nay rather, O man, who are you to answer back to God?" Here there is no resolution of the objection, but first an indignation against those who dare to dispute with God. For to muzzle the objector was not the act of one resolving the question, but of one increasing the perplexity. If you rebuked me when I spoke justly, I am silent and bear the authority. Why, then, do you accuse and not persuade? But first he muzzles the audacity of human rashness and of that which dares and altogether strives to take the word of God as father of what happens: "Nay rather, O man, who are you to answer back to God?" And taking a common example—for it is necessary also from common custom to establish the thoughts—as if someone had seen a master striking his own servant, and passing into their midst said: "Why are you striking?" And the other, putting forward his masterly authority, said: "And what is it to you? Do I not have authority over my own servant? Is he not mine? Is he not subject to my authority?

These things indicate authority, not demonstrate consistency. And to the one who resists, the indignant man immediately says, "What is it to you?" However, when he has digested his anger and calmed his own indignation, having come to gentleness, he then defends himself to the accuser: "So that you may not condemn me, O man, for striking inopportunely, learn what was dared." This the apostle also does. For when called to account by those who contradict, since he pities whom he wishes and hardens whom he wishes, why then does he still complain? For who has resisted his will? Since he saw the voice was disowned, he says, "Nay rather, O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does the clay legislate to the molder? Does the creation meddle with the creator? Does the slave demand an account from the master?" Do you not learn even from common affairs that a servant struggling for freedom, when he is being dragged into slavery, does not dare to set up his own person, but takes another to fight alongside him, so as not to oppose a slave's person to the master's countenance? And you, being a mortal man, compare yourself to the immortal countenance? Who are you to answer back to God? Do you, the temporary, meddle with the eternal? The mortal with the immortal? The one dissolved into a tomb with the one dwelling in heaven? The one nourished from the earth and returning to earth, do you demand an account from the one who endures through all times? Nay rather, O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does not the potter have authority from the same clay to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Yes, he says.

You speak well in rebuking, but you do not solve the question. For by the very means by which you rebuke, you increase the accusation. For did he not say that the potter has authority to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Therefore, he himself is also the one who makes the dishonored ones. And why then do you blame me? For I do not tolerate this speech of yours; for by not solving the accusation, you increase the difficulty. For this reason the apostle, when he rebuked them as having acted rashly, then corrects them as erring and says indignantly: "Indeed, O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does not the potter have authority from the same clay to make vessels, some for honor, some for dishonor?" But when he perceived that by rebuking he rather increases the contradiction, he immediately adds: "But if God, wishing to display his anger and make known his power, bore it with great patience." Let the words be examined in detail; for it is not from bare utterances that one should grasp the truth. He showed and taught that one must not demand an account from God, and Paul made use of the voice of God speaking through Isaiah. For God says to the old people: "Let the creation not say to the creator, 'Why did you make me?' Let the clay not answer the potter, 'What are you doing?' Let the creation not answer the creator, 'Why did you make me?' But you give me orders about my works and my sons." Paul, taking up the rebuking voice of Isaiah, corrects the erroneous opinions.

Now the part concerning the rebuke has been shown; let the part concerning the solution follow, so that you may learn, brother, that Paul did not bring forward "Who are you to answer back to God?" for the precision of the matters under investigation, but out of indignation. For here he attributes everything to the potter and says: Does not the potter have authority from the same clay to make vessels, some for honor and some for dishonor? Here he speaks for the sake of objection, not for the precision of the doctrine. But elsewhere, wishing to show that a vessel of honor and a vessel of dishonor are not fashioned by God, but from the choice of those who work, whether inclining toward base things or looking toward virtue, he says to Timothy: I write these things to you, so that you may see how one ought to conduct oneself in the house of God. And in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthenware ones. These are from the same Paul. For I do not introduce testimony from elsewhere, so that you may not say that, not finding a solution from the apostle, I jumped to another scripture. The same Paul who was indignant at these things, when he speaks apart from indignation, discourses with precision. So Paul says: And in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthenware ones, and some for honor, some for dishonor. And what does he add? Therefore, if someone cleanses himself, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified. The one who here attributed the vessel of honor and the vessel of dishonor to the potter, in another place has assigned everything to choice.

If someone purifies himself, he will be a vessel of honor, sanctified and well-suited to the master for every good work, fully prepared. Observe that he speaks one way when rebuking, and another when teaching. And according to the preceding image of the master striking his own servant, he spoke harshly at once to the outsider, while drawing this truth along. Thus also here he showed that God does not make a vessel of honor and a vessel of dishonor, but makes nature common; choice divides the creation. And so that you may learn precisely that we were not fashioned by nature as vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor, Scripture instructs. If I was fashioned as a vessel of dishonor, why does Scripture teach me to be good? For what I was by nature I cannot change. Why does it teach the one who is bad by nature to be good? Why does it secure the good man, saying, "He who stands, let him see that he does not fall"? If he is good by nature, why secure the one who is secure? Then also the consequence regarding "not of the one willing, nor of the one running": if nothing depends on me, the one willing, why do you preach? If nothing depends on the one running, why do you labor? If nothing depends on the one running, why did God say, "If you are willing and listen to me, you will eat the good things of the land"? If nothing depends on the one willing, why did the Savior say, "How many times did I wish to gather your children, and you were not willing"? Not of the one willing, nor of the one running. If nothing depends on the one running, why did he say to the Galatians, "You were running well; who hindered you"? If it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, why does Paul say, "I run thus, as not uncertainly"?

I forget the things behind, and stretching out toward what is ahead, I pursue the goal. Why do you labor or why do you run? You said it is not of the one who wills, nor of the one who runs. But Scripture resolves the ambiguity. It is not of the one who wills—Isaac, for he wished to bless the firstborn—nor of the one who runs—Esau, into the field—but of the merciful God toward Jacob. It is not of the one who wills—Esau, nor of the one who runs—Isaac, but of the merciful God toward Jacob. So the phrase "not of the one who wills" has been resolved in this way. But why is it entirely "of the merciful God"? For the question still remains: He pities whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills. Pay close attention, brother. God foreknows all things, but He foreknows not as though He Himself molds the future, but as foreseeing what will be and what is to come. For some things are those which He predestines according to His own economy, and other things are those which He foreknows from our actions; it is one thing to pre-form, another to foreknow. If I foreknow that the one who will be bad is bad, my foreknowledge did not make him bad. I mean something like this: If I often see a young man left by his fathers as heir to a great estate, and I see him far from education, living with the dissipated, occupied with spectacles, devoted to horse-racing, I immediately say, looking on: This one will squander the property in a short time, this one destroys the paternal inheritance; not because I foresaw did I mold it, but I inferred from his habits; and the outcome is produced not by the foreknowledge of the observer, but by the conduct of the one who behaves badly. Often, then, brother, we speak also about other matters.

We see someone walking a slippery road and not having a staff, and we immediately say: This one is going to slip; he is ignorant of the nature of the places, he is going to fall into slips. Now, because you foretell, do you yourself cause it? Not that my foreknowledge is like that of God, I say this; but from your own things I teach you about things above you. And pay close attention, so that you may learn, they say, that God makes the righteous and the wicked. He himself said to Jeremiah: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you. For he himself says: The sinners were alienated from the womb, before they came out they were led astray from the belly, they spoke lies. Do you see that from the belly this one was shown righteous and this one wicked? Do you see that it is also a matter of nature? Well said, he says, the Savior to the Jews: You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Read correctly and do not speak perversely. And before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you. Not first I sanctified you, but first I knew you and then I sanctified you. Here he showed foreknowledge, after foreknowledge then the determination. And before I formed you I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you. Since I knew you, I sanctified you. For this reason the apostle says: Whom he foreknew, he also predestined. He did not say first he predestined, but he foreknew, and then he predestined. I beg you, strive together with the word which is laboring through your eagerness, not so that you may shout—We do not seek these things, as God bears witness—but we seek the common benefit. Stretch out the ear of your mind to me.

Before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you—this is something inferior said by the apostle. For does not the apostle say concerning himself: "Whom he foreknew and pre-elected us before the foundation of the world"? He knew Jeremiah from the womb; he foreknew the apostles before the whole world, and not simply foreknew, but also pre-elected. Let us see, then, whether foreknowledge produced nature. If being chosen before the foundation of the world makes the apostles a nature of righteousness and not a virtue of choice, why were those foreknown called tax collectors? Why did Paul persecute? Why do prostitutes hasten into the kingdom? For if the worthiness of the kingdom was foreknown for a prostitute, why did she prostitute herself? If God foreknew Paul, why does foreknowledge not produce nature? Why did the one foreknown before the foundation of the world become a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man? You see that foreknowledge does not produce nature, but choice foresees. If foreknowledge made the apostle, why did Matthew collect taxes? And collecting taxes is idolatry. For the Savior says: "You will be like the tax collector or like the Gentile." Thus he defined tax collecting as equivalent to idolatry. If, then, Matthew was foreknown, why did foreknowledge not make him an apostle, but choice inclined him to obedience? Rahab was saved and numbered among the faithful. Clearly God also foreknew her. How, then, did she, being foreknown, prostitute herself? Why was the pearl, foreseen, in the mire? You see this everywhere: nature is neutral, choice is foreknown by God, and it appears in one's own ways of life. God foresaw what would be.

The fruit of his conduct became known. Take the solution from Paul's voice. Those whom he foreknew and preordained, these he also called; and those whom he called, these he also justified. Why was Judas called and not justified? Those whom he foreknew and preordained, these he also called. Therefore, the prophet being known from the womb creates no prejudice, since for those chosen before the ages, nature did not follow, but choice bore witness to foreknowledge. It has thus been demonstrated that foreknowledge does not create nature, unless someone is entirely contentious and brazenly shameless against the truth itself. But why does he construct a saying about Pharaoh at all? Because it was said to Pharaoh: "I roused you for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So that you may make known your power, you punish a man? So that you may make known your might, you destroy the innocent? If he is guilty, then blame him. If he is innocent, do not call him. What then is the meaning of "that I might display my power in you"? And pay attention to me. I will use an ancient and true example. The medical art, wishing from the beginning to understand the nature of man and his internal organs, used incisions and dissected living men, in order to provide healing for others. But this too was unjust—that for the salvation of others, some should be sacrificed alive. What then did the ancients do? They took those condemned to death for robbery or adultery or sorcery, and dissected them alive, neither wronging those being punished and discovering aid for humanity.

For the one who had once been given over to punishment because of his offenses, they would dissect alive, so that while his entrails were still quivering they might learn the activity. God, then, as a most wise physician—for he is a physician who says, "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, and those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are in a bad state"—takes Pharaoh, who was already culpable and subject to countless punishments because of his own transgressions. For he was liable for many sins. The first blasphemy was to say, "I do not know the Lord." Blasphemy was the beginning of his evils. The second was his ingratitude toward the people, because he condemned a free race to slavery and brick-making. Third, that he drowned innocent infants in the river. Fourth, that he did not respect the Lord when he was being proclaimed. Fifth, that seeing miracles he was shameless toward piety. Taking him, who was subject to many evils, God, as an excellent physician, dissected him with miracles, not punishing once in order to kill. For those who dissect also punish, but they allow the cutting of the limbs so that from all sides they may find the activity of their skill. He subjects him to frogs; he arms against him strange legions, legions of frogs, of locusts, in order to show the exceeding power of his might. He did not send an angel from heaven, nor the orders of the cherubim; he does not send the seraphim against those who oppose, but showing the power of his might, he prepares legions of frogs. And the armies of locusts were there, with no visible commander, but as God commanded they were led.

Frogs came out of the river, marshaling themselves against the enemy of God; locusts came, having no discernment of reason, but fulfilling the master’s command. Gnats and dog-flies also came, and many and various wonders God works against him in diverse ways, dissecting and torturing his soul, punishing in diverse ways his mind which had sinned in diverse ways. And so that you may learn that it is for this reason that he cuts him up piece by piece and did not punish him all at once, so that through him he might display his power, the all-virtuous wisdom says: For your all-powerful hand, which also created the world, and your inscrutable wisdom were not at a loss to hurl against them either bold lions or newly created beasts full of rage, unknown. But he did everything displaying his own forbearance. For this reason God says: So that you may relate to your children’s children how many things I did to mock the Egyptians. So Pharaoh, who did things worthy of countless punishments, God punishes and says to him: For this very purpose I roused you up, so that I might display my power in you and my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So that through you I might gain others; so that through you I might bring others to their senses; so that through you I might teach others. And so that you may learn how the dissection of this man benefited the others, take the working of scripture. Once the ark of God was seized by the Philistines, and all the seers and false prophets came and said to the kings of the Philistines: Let us send away the ark of the God of Israel from us, his mighty hand. Do you not know how many things the Lord did to the Egyptians?

Why should we harden our hearts, as Pharaoh hardened his? O the gratitude of the nations! Be ashamed, you who contradict the voices of the foreigners. "Let us not," said the foreigners, "harden our hearts, as God hardened Pharaoh's heart." They attributed the insensibility to Pharaoh himself. Why do we harden our hearts, as Pharaoh hardened his? Did they not send the people away when they mocked them? And now let us propitiate God. And in another battle formation again, when the foreigners saw the ark, they say: "Woe to us, this is the harsh God who struck Egypt. Woe to us, deliver us, Lord." Before the experience, you see how Pharaoh brought them to their senses. These things the foreigners cry out. And another foreign woman, Rahab, once a prostitute, now chaste, that well-known woman, says to the spies: "We know all that the Lord God did to the Egyptians, and we heard, and our heart was humbled, and no breath was left in us, because your God is great, both in heaven above and on earth below." Do you see that God does not lie when he says: "For this very purpose I roused you, that I might display my power through you and my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth"? And let the end of the apostolic teaching be the end of our words. Paul says: "But if God, wishing to display his wrath and make known his power, brought the wrath upon vessels of wrath with great forbearance." He does not simply say he brought the wrath, but upon those worthy of wrath. For what does he say? "He brought wrath with great forbearance upon vessels of wrath." For as you know, the apostle speaks to those who are.

Now then, brothers, be strong, be empowered, be fashioned. But if you are fashioned by nature, why do you say to me, "Be fashioned"? To be fashioned means to render oneself worthy through one's ways. And take the nature of things as witness. Nature produces the wool; but the fashioned product women work. Indeed, they call the weaving itself, the work itself, a "fashioning." Just as nature produces the wool, while wisdom fashions what has been provided by nature, so God, having formed nature, handed it over to choice. Our nature is wool, then. It is in you to fashion from it a vessel of honor or to fashion a vessel of dishonor. You are a dyer: you received from nature the fleece; you received choice, as a kind of dye. Do you wish to dye the fleece royal purple? You become a son of a king. Did you dye it with dark deeds? You become a son of darkness and night, not because nature works this, but because choice fashions the difference. None of this is by necessity, even if the contentious contend. For by the grace of God, as far as our power extends, we have made the resolution, so that the matters in question may henceforth be deposited in the minds. And pay close attention. If someone opposes, resist him in this way: to overthrow him with his own vessels. And it is not because vessels lie before you in the house that you use them all indifferently, but you know which vessel receives wine and which vessel receives vinegar.

Thus God knows which soul is suited for mercy, which soul is worthy of punishment, not because it is so made by nature, but because it has so fashioned itself through its own conduct. For this reason, brother, he calls both those who are punished and those who are pitied "vessels"—vessels of punishment and vessels of mercy. And if God, wishing to display his anger and make known his power, brought his anger with great forbearance upon vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to display the wealth of his mercy upon vessels of mercy, then he made that one a vessel of wrath who received the wrath, and this one a vessel of mercy who received the philanthropy, so as to show that each person summons wrath or mercy upon himself. But perhaps someone takes exception to this phrase, or rather to the wording, "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." He says, "Thus he speaks not from conduct, but he himself prepared them." But one must know that being prepared does not come from nature, but from choice. And accept this testimony: that to be prepared means to render oneself through choice worthy of punishment or philanthropy. For he says, "Yes, I am not exact in the Scriptures, but the aim is that you be healed." For the one being healed by a physician does not scrutinize the nature of the remedies, but strives to be healed. If your opponent says to you, "How did you learn? How were you taught?" say, "How I learned, I know; how I shall explain, I do not know. For I did not heal, but I was healed to have an unwavering soul." If you see him arguing, say:

Since I have not become a physician, nor have I been entrusted with the medical art, go to the physicians and they will announce to you the assistance of the remedies. May it be that we, being healed, send up glory to the only physician and wise God: to him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.