No controversy had arisen amongst Christians in the time of Irenæus on the subject of predestination, but heathen Stoics believed in an irresistible fate, and the Gnostics taught a natural and essential difference between the soul of one man and that of another, by virtue of which the former was of course raised at death to an intimate union with the Supreme Essence, whilst the latter could never hope for such an elevation, although he might be raised to a higher state than that of earthly existence. Both these notions Irenæus combatted. He taught that man is endued with freewill(368), having good and evil set before him, and having the power to choose or reject either one or the other, and to act accordingly(369); that God has always treated men as having the power to act for themselves(370), rewarding or punishing them(371), praising or blaming(372) them according to the nature of their choice; and that this proves that we have freewill(373): that in fact the circumstance that our faith is called our own, and is rewarded(374), proves that we are free agents(375). In conformity with this opinion, he teaches that men are redeemed, not by compulsion, but by persuasion(376); that each person has a portion of divine light given him, and will be recompensed according as he keeps or rejects it(377); and that as each man’s salvation thus depends upon his own exertion, and cannot be attained without it, so our reward will be the more valued for having been gained by exertion(378). We can see, therefore, that Irenæus could not have believed that the salvation of the elect was accomplished by the mere will of God concerning the individuals, either in opposition to their own will or by constraining their wills; although he asserted very fully the necessity of divine grace to cause our freewill to take a right direction(379).