as just that which pleases the stronger.  Such indeed is the position taken up, albeit unwittingly, by those who rest all obligation upon constraint, and in consequence take power as the gauge of right.  But one will soon abandon maxims so strange and so unfit to make men good and charitable through the imitation of God.  For one will reflect that a God who would take pleasure in the misfortune of others cannot be distinguished from the evil principle of the Manichaeans, assuming that this principle had become sole master of the universe; and that in consequence one must attribute to the true God sentiments that render him worthy to be called the good Principle.

Happily these extravagant dogmas scarce obtain any longer among theologians.  Nevertheless some astute persons, who are pleased to make difficulties, revive them:  they seek to increase our perplexity by uniting the controversies aroused by Christian theology to the disputes of philosophy.  Philosophers have considered the questions of necessity, of freedom and of the origin of evil; theologians have added thereto those of original sin, of grace and of predestination.  The original corruption of the human race, coming from the first sin, appears to us to have imposed a natural necessity to sin without the succour of divine grace:  but necessity being incompatible with punishment, it will be inferred that a sufficient grace ought to have been given to all men; which does not seem to be in conformity with experience.

But the difficulty is great, above all, in relation to God’s dispositions for the salvation of men.  There are few saved or chosen; therefore the choice of many is not God’s decreed will.  And since it is admitted that those whom he has chosen deserve it no more than the rest, and are not even fundamentally less evil, the goodness which they have coming only from the gift of God, the difficulty is increased.  Where is, then, his justice [60] (people will say), or at the least, where is his goodness?  Partiality, or respect of persons, goes against justice, and he who without cause sets bounds to his goodness cannot have it in sufficient measure.  It is true that those who are not chosen are lost by their own fault:  they lack good will or living faith; but it rested with God alone to grant it them.  We know that besides inward grace there are usually outward circumstances which distinguish men, and that training, conversation, example often correct or corrupt natural disposition.  Now that God should call forth circumstances favourable to some and abandon others to experiences which contribute to their misfortune, will not that give us cause for astonishment?  And it is not enough (so it seems) to say with some that inward grace is universal and equal for all.  For these same authors are obliged to resort to the exclamations of St. Paul, and to say:  ’O the depth!’ when they consider how men are distinguished by what we may call outward graces, that is, by graces appearing in the diversity of circumstances which God calls forth, whereof men are not the masters, and which have nevertheless so great an influence upon all that concerns their salvation.