Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book II: That God Is Not the Author of Sin
Chapter 2: The state of the question is explained
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).
Since the chief controversy is to be disputed with Zwingli and Calvin, and those who are engaged in the same error, I have judged it worth the labor briefly to explain the state of the question. For if the controversy be proposed under these words — whether God is the author of evils; or whether he can be; or whether he is the cause why we sin — there will be no question at all: for all those things not only the Catholics, but also the Calvinists, and the Libertines themselves too, deny.
Of the Libertines Calvin reports this, in the epistle to the men of Rouen against a certain Franciscan Libertine, in these words: “He protests that his mind is far otherwise, and affirms that he will not make God the author of evil. But what does such a subterfuge profit, in a matter so open?” And so the Libertines, though they referred adulteries, murders, rapines, and the other crimes and outrages of men to God, nevertheless denied that they made God the author of evils — because, namely, they did not judge those things to be evils, since they were done by God, who can do nothing evil. Zwingli, in the sermon on providence, chapters 5 and 6, more than once repeats that God is not unjust, nor can sin by any means. And John Calvin, in more than one place, affirms in express words that God is not the author of evils. In the preface of the book on the eternal predestination of God: “Among all the pious,” says he, “this ought to be fixed and confessed: that there is no reason why men should ascribe God as partner in their sins, or in any way involve him with themselves to bear a part of the fault.” And at the end of the same book: “Therefore,” says he, “since the misdeeds which are wickedly perpetrated by men proceed from the Lord for a just cause, though unknown to us, even if his will is the altogether first cause of things, yet I deny that he is the author of sin.” And a little after: “With a base and illiberal calumny do they load us, who pretend that God is made the author of sin, if his will is the cause of all things which are done.” And book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 17, §3: “Whosoever shall be composed to this modesty will neither murmur against God concerning adversities in the past, nor throw back upon him the fault of their crimes.” And in the same place he reprehends Lyconides, who in Plautus says: “God was the impeller; I believe the gods willed it.” Finally, the same Calvin, in the admonition against the Libertines, strives by a long disputation to prove that God is not the cause of sin. Peter Martyr, in the commentary on the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans, writes indeed that God truly and properly impels men to sin, yet at the same time denies that God sins, or is the author of sin. Finally, Theodore Beza, both in the response to Heshusius and in another to Castellio, diligently purges himself and Calvin from that mark, that he makes God the author of sin. And (to omit the rest) in the response to Castellio he explains his whole judgment, and that of his teacher Calvin, in thirty-eight aphorisms; of which aphorisms the eighth runs thus: “There does not follow from these any of those blasphemies — namely, either that God is the author of sin, or that he is delighted with iniquity, or even wills iniquity; or that Satan, or men, in acting ill obey God, or, insofar as they act ill, do what God wills, and hence are without fault. Far, indeed, as far as possible, be all such blasphemies not only from our tongues, but even from our thoughts.”
Wherefore, since the adversaries confess in word what the Catholics teach, we should labor in vain in adducing the testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers by which it is proved that God is not the cause of sin, unless we first taught that they in fact hold what in word they dare not profess. Therefore three things will have to be performed by us: first, to explain what they themselves teach concerning the cause of sin on the side of God; second, whether from what they teach it follows that God is the author of sin; third, whether their judgment is true — and hence, whether God is the author of sin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Explicatur datus quaestionis. Quia praecipua controversia, cumZwinglio et Calvino, et iis, qui in eodem errore ver¬ santur, disputanda est : operae pretium esse duxi, statum quaestionis breviter explicare, nam si sub his verbis controversia propo¬ natur, an Deus sit auctor malorum ; vel an possit ; vel an sit causa, cur nos peccemus : nulla quaestio erit. Siquidem illa omnia non solum Catholici, sed etiam Calvinistae, et ipsi quoque Libertini negant. De Libertinis id refert Calvinus in epist. ad Rotomagenses adversus Franciscanum quem¬ dam Libertinum, his verbis : « Contestatur, inquit, sibi longe aliam esse mentem, seque Deum mali auctorem facere nolle affirmat : sed quid prodest ejusmodi subterfugium in re tam aperta ? » Itaque Libertini, tametsi adulteria, homicidia, rapinas, et caetera ho¬ minum scelera, atque flagitia in Deum refer¬ rent, negabant tamen se facere Deum aucto¬ rem malorum; quia videlicet non judicabant, illa esse mala, cum a Deo fierent, qui nihil mali facere potest. Zwinglius in serm. de providentia, cap 3. et 6. non semel repetit, Deum injustum non esse, nec peccare ulla ratione posse. Joannes vero Calvinus non uno in loco disertis verbis affirmat Deum non esse auctorem malorum. Praefatione libri de aeterna Dei praedestina¬ tione : « Inter omnes pios, inquit, fixum hoc, et confessum esse debet, non esse cur suis peccatis socium homines Deum adseribant, vel ullo modo secum involvant ad partem culpae sustinendam. » Et in fine ejusdem libri : « Ergo, inquit, cum justa de causa, licet nobis ignota, a Domino procedant, quae scelerate ab hominibus maleficia perpe¬ trantur : etiamsi rerum omnino prima causa sit ejus voluntas, peccati tamen eum esse auctorem nego. » Et paulo post : « Turpi quidem, inquit, et illiberali calumnia nos gravant, qui Deum peccati auctorem fieri obtendunt, si omnium quae aguntur causa est ejus voluntas. » Et lib. i. Instit. cap. 17. §. 3 : « Ad hanc modestiam, inquit, qui¬ cumque erunt compositi, neque in praeteri¬ tum de rebus adversis contra Deum frement, neque scelerum culpam in ipsum regerent. » Et ibidem reprehendit Lyconidem, qui apud Plautum dicit : « Deus impulsor fuit, credo Deos voluisse.» Denique idem Calvinus in ad¬ monitione adversus Libertinos longa dispu¬ tatione probare nititur, Deum non esse cau¬ sam peccati. Petrus Martyr in comment. 1. cap. epist. ad ltoman, scribit quidem Deum vere ac proprie impellere homines ad pec¬ candum, tamen simul negat, Deum peccare, aut esse auctorem peccati. Denique Theodorus Beza tum in respon¬ sione ad Ileshusium, tum in alia ad Casta- lionem, diligenter purgat se et Calvinum ajj CAPUT I I. 2ol illa nota quod Deum auctorem peccati faciat. Ac (ut omittam caetera) in responsione ad Castalionem triginta et octo Aphorismis ex¬ plicat totam sententiam suam, et praeceptoris sui Calvini. Eorum Aphorismorum octavus sic habet : « Non consequitur ex istis ulla istarum blasphemiarum , nempe vel Deum esse auctorem peccati, sive delectari iniqui¬ tate, aut etiam velle iniquitatem : vel Sata- nam, aut homines male agendo, obedire Deo, aut quatenus male agunt, facere quod Deus vult, ac proinde esse extra culpam. Absint vero quam longissime omnes ejusmodi bla- phemiae non tantum a linguis sed etiam a cogitationibus nostris. » Quare cum adversarii verbo fateantur, id quod Catholici docent, frustra laboraremus in testimoniis Scripturae et Patrum addu¬ cendis, quibus probatur Deum non esse cau¬ sam peccati, nisi antea doceremus, eos reipsa sentire quod verbo profiteri non audent ; ideo nobis tria prestanda erunt. Primo ex¬ plicandum, quid ipsi doceant de causa pec¬ cati ex parte Dei ; secundo, an ex eo quod ipsi docent, sequatui*, Deum esse auctorem peccati ; tertio, an sit vera eorum sententia ; ac proinde, an Deus sit auctor peccati.