Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book II: That God Is Not the Author of Sin
Chapter 1: On the errors concerning the primary cause of sin
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book II. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There have been many, both among the ancient and among the more recent heretics, who with huge blasphemy have referred the primary cause of sin to God himself. The prince of this error was that very man who is said to have been simply the first of all heretics. For thus writes Vincent of Lérins, in the Commonitory against the profane novelties of words, concerning Simon Magus: “Who, before Simon the magician, struck by the Apostolic severity — from whom that old whirlpool of turpitudes has flowed down, by a continuous and hidden succession, even to Priscillian at the last — dared to say that God the creator is the author of evils, that is, of our crimes, impieties, and outrages?” Then the Cerdonists, Marcionites, Manichees, Priscillianists, Albigenses, who in various ages and in diverse regions, opening schools of impiety, and introducing two first principles and as it were two Gods, the one good, the other evil, would have the evil God to be the primary cause of sin. Of the Cerdonists see Tertullian in the book On Prescription against the heretics; of the Marcionites, Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 29, against heresies; of the Manichees, St. Augustine in the book On Heresies, chapter 46; of the Priscillianists, St. Leo in the epistle to Turibius, 93, chapter 6; of the Albigenses, St. Antoninus in the Theological Summa, part 4, title 11, chapter 7, §3. But although all these said that God is the cause of sin, yet they in some manner tempered their judgment. For Simon Magus did not openly teach that God wills, or commands, or even effects evils, but that he is the cause of our sins in this way — that he gave us a nature which cannot not sin. Cerdo, Marcion, Manichaeus, and the rest who set up two principles of things did indeed refer the cause of sin to a certain first and everlasting principle, but named it not God, but the devil — or at least a God not good, but evil.
The first, then, who openly made God — and the good God — the author of sin was a certain Florinus, who from a disciple of Montanus deserved, through this new dogma, to become a heresiarch. Of which Florinus Irenaeus rightly wrote (as Eusebius of Caesarea reports, book 5 of the History, chapter 20) that he was more than a heretic, since he dared to assert openly what no heretic up to that time had asserted. St. Augustine, in the book On Heresies, chapter 59, writes that it was the heresy of the Seleucians that evil is sometimes from God, sometimes from matter; but he did not explain whether the Seleucians spoke of natural evil, or of moral, which properly is called sin.
Florinus — to Irenaeus (as we have said) more than a heretic — not a few in this our age have followed. The chief are those who are called Libertines, whose sect (since we have no other authors) we have learned from Calvin, and from the same have been compelled to seek the history which we here recount. For John Calvin wrote two books against the Libertines, of which the one is entitled Instruction against the Libertines, the other is an epistle to the men of Rouen against a certain Franciscan, a sectary of the Libertine error. The authors of the dogma, then, were Coppin and Quintin, Flemish cobblers; of whom the one (that is, Quintin) was put to death at Tournai by the Catholic magistrate, both for many outrages and also for his new and very pernicious heresy — but his errors first abjured. Their primary error was that there is only one immortal spirit, namely God; that angels, demons, souls are nothing besides opinion. And hence they gathered many and most absurd dogmas. The first was that whatever things seem to be done by men, whether they be good or evil, are all done not by men, but by that one Spirit of God, who works all in all. The second, that sin is nothing besides an empty and false opinion, since God does all things, who can do nothing evil. The third, that they ought not to be reprehended who kill, commit adultery, steal; for that would be to reprehend God. The fourth, that regeneration is the laying down of conscience, the casting away of scruples, the ignorance of the difference between good and evil. For in the state of innocence Adam was ignorant of the difference of good and evil; and to that state, say the Libertines, they return who do anything whatever without scruple; and that this is Christian liberty, and the mortification of the old Adam. Wherefore, if they see anyone shrink from evil actions, they are wont to say: O Adam, thou still seest something; thou still keepest the taste of that apple. The fifth, that penitence is nothing else than to acknowledge and profess that one has done nothing evil; and for that cause they say that to Peter his sin was forgiven, because he believed that he had not sinned when he denied Christ; to Judas it was not forgiven, because he believed that he had sinned, nor could put off that conscience — as is known from those words of his: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. The sixth, that a man can in this life arrive at the highest perfection and innocence — because, namely, if he cast away all scruples, he will lack all sin. The seventh, that Christ is nothing but a certain composite of the Spirit of God and opinion; and that Christ then died when he abolished that opinion that sin is something; and then returned from the lower world, and recalled us all to life, when he taught that it is the very Spirit of God which always lives and reigns, and that no other resurrection is to be awaited. The eighth, that it is licit to feign and dissemble all things, and to live with Catholics catholicly, with Lutherans lutheranly. The ninth, that the sacred Scriptures are not to be made much of, since the spirit suffices. Further, the Libertines themselves so contemned not only the Scriptures but also the sacred writers that by way of contumely they named St. John a stupid youth, St. Matthew a money-lender, St. Paul a broken vessel, St. Peter the denial of Christ.
Now although Calvin says that he detests these horrendous blasphemies, and even endeavors (as we said) to refute them in published pamphlets, yet it is altogether probable that, as the Anabaptists flowed forth from the Lutherans, so the Libertines from the Calvinists. For in the books of Calvin, and of his master Zwingli, and of his disciple Beza, and also of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, who in many things agree with Calvin, are found most open sentences from which it is gathered that God is the author of all the crimes which are perpetrated by men. The same was of old taught by Luther and Melanchthon, as is clear from the assertion of article 36, where Luther writes that no one has it in his power to think good or evil; and more clearly from Melanchthon's commentary on chapter 8 to the Romans, where we read that the adultery of David and the betrayal of Judas are as much the work of God as the calling of Paul. But each retracted his judgment: for Luther, in the book on the Saxon visitation, acknowledges and teaches free choice in civil matters, toward good as well as evil; and Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1535, under the title on the cause of sin, studiously refutes that judgment which refers evil actions to God. Many of the Lutherans also — as Heshusius, Castellio, and others — have refuted Calvin's judgment on the cause of sin in published books. And what Calvin's judgment is we shall demonstrate in the third chapter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. J)c erroribus circa primariam causam peccati Multi fuerunt tum antiquis, t um ex recen- tioribus hscreticis , qui primariam peccati causam, ingenti blasphemia, in Deum ipsum retulerunt. Princeps hujus erroris ille ipse fuit, qui simpliciter primus fuisse dicitur omnium hmreticorum. Sic enim de Simone Mago scribit VincentiusLirinensis in commo¬ nitorio adversus profanas vocum novitates : « Quis ante magum Simonem Apostolica di¬ strictione percussum, a quo vetus ille turpi¬ tudinum gurges usque in novissimum Pri- scillianum continua, et occulta successione manavit, auctorem malorum, idest, scelerum, impietatum, flagitiorumque nostrorum ausus est dicere creatorem Deum ? » CAPUT I. 249 Deinde Cerdonista?, Marcionistse, Mani¬ chaei, Priscillianistae, Albigenses, qui variis saeculis, et in diversis regionibus scholas im¬ pietatis aperientes, duoque prima principia, ac vcluti duos Deos unum bonum , alterum malum introducentes , primariam peccati causam Deum malum esse voluerunt. De Cerdonistis vide Tertullianum in libro de praescriptione adversus haereticos ; de Mar- cionistis Irenaeum lib. i. cap. 29. adversus haereses ; de Manichaeis S. Augustinum in lib. de hmresibus cap. 49; de Priscillianistis S. Leonem in epist. ad Turbium 93. cap G ; de Albigensibus S. Antoninum in Summa Theologica par. 4. tit. 11. cap. 7. §. 3. Sed quamquam isti omnes Deum peccati causam esso dicerent, tamen sententiam suam aliquo modo temperabant. Nam Simon Magus non docebat aperte Deum velle, aut imperare, aut etiam efficere mala, sed ea ratione pec¬ catorum nostrorum causam esse, quod eam naturam nobis dederit, quai non possit non peccare. Cerdon, Marciori, Manichceus, et cseteri, qui duo rerum principia statuebant, referebant quidem peccati causam in princi¬ pium quoddam primum, et sempiternum, sed illud non Deum, sed diabolum, aut certe Deum non bonum, sed malum nominabant. Primus igitur, qui apei-te Deum, et bonum Deum auctorem peccati fecit, Florinus qui¬ dam fuit, qui ex Montani discipulo, per no¬ vum hoc dogma hajresiai’cha fieri meruit. De quo Florino recte scripsit Ire meus (ut refert Caesariensis lib. v. hist. cap. 20). eum fuisse plusquam haereticum, cum id ausus fuerit palam asserere, quod nullus han’eticorum usque ad id tempus assenierat. Sanctus Augustinus in lib. de haeres, cap. 59. scribit, Seleucianorum hamesim fuisse, malum ali¬ quando esse a Deo, aliquando a matei ia. Sed non explicuit, an de malo naturali, an de morali, quod proprie dicitur peccatum, Seleu- ciani loquerentur. Florinum, Irenaio (ut diximus) plusquam haereticum, nostro hoc saeculo non pauci se¬ cuti sunt. Pi-aecipui sunt, qui dicuntur Liber¬ tini, quorum sectam (quoniam alios auctores non habemus) ex Calvino didicimus, et ex eodem historiam, quam hoc loco i’ecensemus, petere coacti sumus. Scripsit enim Joannes Calvinus duos libros adversus Libertinos , quorum alter inscribitur : Instructio contra Libertinos, alter est epistola adRotomagenses adversus Franciseammi quemdam Libertini erroris sectarium. Igitur auctores dogmatis Tom. V. fuerunt Coppinuset Quintinus, sutores Flan- dri. Quonim alter (id est, Quintinus) Tornaci a Catholico magistratu tum ob multa fla- gitia, tum etiam ob novam, eamque valde perniciosamhairesim interfectus est, sed prius erroribus abjuxatis. Primarius eorum fuit ei'ror, unum esse tantum spiritum immortalem, videlicet Deum: angelos, daemones, animas, nihil esse praeter opinionem. Ilinc vero multa, eaque absur¬ dissima dogmata colligebant. Primum erat, quaecumque fieri videntur ab hominibus sive bona sive mala illa sint, omnia fieri, non ab hominibus, sed ab illo uno spiritu Dei , qui omnia in omnibus opei’atur. Alterum, peccatum nihil esse praeter ina¬ nem, et falsam opinionem, cum Deus om¬ nia faciat, qui nihil mali facei’e potest. Tertium, non debere reprehendi eos, qui occidunt, moechantur, fuxantur ; id enim esset Deum reprehendere. Quartum , regeuerationem esse deposi¬ tionem conscientiae, abjectionemscrupulorum ignox-ationem discriminis inter bonum etma- luiu. Nam in statu innocentiae ignorabet Adam discrimen boni et mali, atque ad cum statum redire dicunt Libertini eos, qui sine scrupulo quidlibet agunt, et lianc esse Chri¬ stianam libertatem, et mortificationem veteris Adami. Quocirca si quem vident reformidare actiones malas, dicei-e solent, o Adam adhuc aliquid vides, adhuc pomi illius gustum re¬ tines. Quintum, poenitentiam nihil esse aliud, nisi agnoscere, et profiteri se nihil egisse mali, atque ea de causa dicunt, Petro pec¬ catum fuisse dimissum, quia crediderit, se non peccasse, cum Chidstum negavit : Juda) non fuisse dimissum quia crediderit se pec¬ casse , neque potuerit conscientiam illam exuere, ut ex illis ejus verbis cognoscitur : Peccavi tradens sanguinem justum. Sextum, posse hominem in hac vita ad summam pei-fectionem, et innocentiam per¬ venire, quia videlicet, si abjiciat omnes scru¬ pulos, omni peccato carebit. Septimum, Christum nihil esse, nisi quid¬ dam compositum ex spii-ituDei, et opinione. Tunc autem mortuum esse Christum, quando abolevit illam opinionem, quod peccatum sit aliquid : tunc vero ab inferis rediissc, et nos omnes in vitam revocasse, cum docuit, non esse ipsum Dei spii-itum, qui semper vivit, et regnat ; neque aliam expectandam esse re-i surrectionem. 17 250 LIBER II. Octavum, licitum esse simulare, ac dissi¬ mulare omnia, et cum Catholicis catholice, cum Lutheranis lutherane vivere. Nonum, Scripturas sacras non esse magni faciendas, cum spiritus sufficiat. Porro ipsi Libertini non solum Scripturas, sed etiam scriptores sacros ita contemnebant, ut per contumeliam S. Joannem juvenem stolidum, S. Matthaeum foeneratorem, S. Paulum vas confractum, S. Petrum Christi abnegutionem nominarent. Quamvis autem horrendas istas blasphe- mias, Calvinus detestari se dicat, et eas etiam (ut diximus) editis libellis refutare conatur , omnino tamen probabile est, ut Anabaptistas ex Lutheranis, sic Libertinos ex Calvinianis promanasse. Nam in libris Calvini, et Magi¬ stri ejus Zwinglii, ac discipuli ejus Bezae, necnon Martini Buceri, et Petri Martyris, qui in multis cum Calvino conveniunt, inveniun¬ tur apertissimae sententiae, ex quibus colli¬ gitur, Deum esse auctorem omnium sce¬ lerum, quae ab hominibus perpetrantur. Docuerunt idem olim Lutherus et Melan- chthon, ut perspicuum est ex assertione art. 36. ubi Lutherus scribit, neminem habere in potestate, ut cogitet bonum vel malum ; et clarius ex commentario Melanchthonis in cap. vili, ad Rom. ubi legimus, sic esse opus Dei, Davidis adulterium et Judac proditionem, ut Pauli vocationem. Gseterum uterque sen¬ tentiam retractavit. Nam Lutherus in libro de visitatione Saxonica agnoscit, et docet liberum arbitrium in rebus civilibus tam ad bonum, quam ad malum ; et Melanchthon in locis communibus anno 1336. editis, titulo de causa peccati, studiose refellit sententiam illam, qua; refert in Deum actiones malas. Multi etiam Lutheranorum, ut Heshusius Ca¬ stalio, et alii, Calvini sententiam de causa peccati libris edidis refutarunt. Qubb sit autem Calvini sententia, in 3. cap. demonstrabi¬ mus. \