Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book II: That God Is Not the Author of Sin
Chapter 8: It is proved from the divine writings that God neither sins nor is the author 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 follows the third part of the disputation on the cause of sin on the side of God; in which it will have to be demonstrated, from the Scriptures, and the Fathers, and natural reason also, that God neither sins nor is in any way the author of sin; for we have already shown that this most absurd error is common to the Libertines with Calvin and Beza.
First, then, the Scriptures affirm in express words that sins are not done by God. Genesis 1: God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. Deuteronomy 32: God is faithful and without any iniquity. Habacuc 1: Thy eyes are too pure to behold evil, and thou canst not look on iniquity. Romans 3: Is God unjust…? God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world? Romans 9: Is there injustice with God? God forbid. 1 John 3: in him there is no sin. Wisdom 11: thou hatest none of the things which thou hast made. And Wisdom 14: to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike. In fine, Scripture is full of such testimonies. Nor are the adversaries so impudent as to dare say openly that sins are done by God in such wise that he himself sins — though this, as we showed above, is gathered from their doctrine.
Second, Scripture teaches that God does not will sins, and hence did not decree from eternity that sins should be done. Psalm 5: thou art not a God that willest iniquity. Psalm 72: thou hast destroyed all them that are disloyal to thee. Ezechiel 18: Is it my will that a sinner should die, saith the Lord God? 2 Peter 3: God is not willing that any should perish. To these, and the like which could be adduced, Calvin and Beza answer in the places cited, and Peter Martyr in the commentary on the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans: that God does not will sins to be done by that will which is declared to us in the Scriptures, which the theologians are wont to name the will of sign; and that of this will the testimonies cited above are to be taken; but that nevertheless, by a certain other will, God altogether wills that men sin, since otherwise he would not attain the end proposed to himself, of declaring his glory in the condemnation or punishment of sin. But these men, while they say that the will of God laid open in the Scriptures is that which forbids sins, show well enough that that other will, by which God wills sins, is not laid open in the Scriptures, and that they have drawn it not from the Scriptures, but from their own head. Moreover, since in God there cannot be contrary wills, and to will sin and not to will sin are contraries, if God wills sins, it follows that there is not in him a will which wills not sins; and thereby it follows that the will declared in the Scriptures, or the will of sign, is nothing else than a will of lying. For what is it to will sins, and yet to will to indicate and declare that one wills not sins, but to will to lie? — unless perchance it be no lie to signify that thou wilt not what thou most of all willest. Moreover, the will of sign is called by the theologians the precept itself, or the prohibition; hence those places of Scripture alone contain the will of sign which contain precepts or prohibitions. Those testimonies, then, which we adduced a little before — Thou art not a God that willest iniquity, and the like, which are set forth by way of indicating, not by way of commanding — are not properly to be referred to the will of sign.
Third, Scripture manifestly teaches that God does not command sins, and thereby is not the author of sins as a moral cause. Ecclesiasticus 15: He hath commanded no man to do wickedly. Jeremias 19: they have built the high places of Baalim… which I commanded not, nor have spoken of, neither hath it once come into my mind. Finally, God most severely forbids and punishes all sins; he does not, then, command that they be done — unless perchance he be believed to fight with himself. What the adversaries are wont to answer to these places we have already said above, and refuted their tergiversation, where we showed that from the judgment of the adversaries it is rightly gathered that God is the author of sins, because by their judgment God commands that those things be done which cannot but be done ill.
Fourth, Scripture teaches that God does not incite — and much less compel — men to sin. James 1: Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. Ecclesiasticus 15: Say not thou: It is through God, that she is not with me… for do not thou the things which he hateth. Say not: He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of wicked men. By which testimony the Holy Spirit seems to have wished studiously to refute the judgment of the adversaries. For that Peter falsely named Martyr, in the commentary on the first chapter to the Romans, says that God impels men to evil works in two ways: in one way, by so deserting that man can by no means resist the temptation; in the other way, by furnishing incitements to sinning within in the mind, and also without. Against the former way cries the Holy Spirit: Say not, It is through God that it is absent. Against the latter he adds: Say not, He hath caused me to err. And since Beza teaches that God willed and decreed that the first man should sin, and by sinning make us all sinners — since, unless men were sinners, God could not lay open the glory of his justice and mercy, partly by punishing, partly by having mercy — from which it follows that wicked men are necessary to God: therefore the Holy Spirit willed that that reason be added: For he hath no need of wicked men. Moreover St. Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10: God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able. Assuredly he who does not permit us to be tempted above our strength much less himself tempts us, or impels us to sin. Peter Martyr, in the place cited, answers to the testimony of St. James adduced by us in the first place; and first he rejects the distinction of St. Augustine, who in book 2 On the Consensus of the Evangelists, chapter 30, writes that there is a twofold kind of temptation, one for proving, the other for seducing; and that of the former it is written, God tempted Abraham, Genesis 22; of the latter it is written, God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man, James 1. This distinction of so great an author — and of itself also most certain and most true — Peter Martyr proudly contemns; in which matter he has done great prejudice to his own cause: for who would not rather give credit to St. Augustine than to that Peter, Martyr in name only? And he brings another distinction, and says that of temptations some are external, some internal; that the external are at times from God; and that therefore James speaks not of the temptations which are applied from without, but of those which are suggested within in the mind. But since the same author had a little before taught that these internal temptations too are from God, he therefore adjoins that James's meaning is that God does not tempt by internal suggestions in such wise that the man is excusable: for in man God finds the matter and, as it were, seed-bed of temptations — namely, the inborn concupiscence. But this doctrine of Peter is altogether repugnant to the sentence of blessed James, who absolutely pronounces that no one is tempted by God, and that God is not a tempter of evils. For he is not rightly said not to tempt who in very truth tempts, though he render not inexcusable him who is tempted; otherwise Satan himself too could be said to tempt no one, and to be no tempter of evils, since he too does not render the men whom he tempts inexcusable, and is not himself the origin of the evil, but finds in men the matter and seed-bed of temptations — namely, the implanted concupiscence.
Fifth, Scripture teaches that sin is proper to the creature; from which it follows that it can in no way be referred to the Creator. Osee 13: Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me — that is: from me thou hast nothing but help; thy ruin thou hast from thyself alone. John 8: When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 1 John 3: He that committeth sin is of the devil. Finally, in 1 John 1 we read: God is light, and in him there is no darkness. Calvin and Martyr answer that the origin of evil is in man on account of the corruption of nature, and that this is what is signified by that testimony of the prophet Osee, and other like ones. But the first sin of Adam had not its origin from the corruption of nature; rather it is that which corrupts nature; wherefore, if that too was committed with God impelling, as we have shown above that Calvin will have it, it follows either that it could not be said of Adam, Destruction is thy own, or that Calvin's judgment is false. Next, that concupiscence itself, and original sin, was implanted in human nature by God himself, Peter Martyr teaches in the place cited, on chapter 1 to the Romans; therefore not only of Adam, but of the other men too, it could not truly be said: Destruction is thy own. “But,” says Martyr, “concupiscence, and original sin itself, was indeed implanted in man by God, but in punishment of Adam's sin; thus the first origin of human perdition is not God, but Adam.” I pass over that the Prophet did not say, Thy destruction is from Adam, but from thyself; and that, if the very sin of Adam is referred to God, our original sin too, which flowed from it, must be referred to God. This only I take up: that it is absurd and iniquitous that one be punished for another — above all with that punishment which is itself also properly sin — the Lord saying through Ezechiel, chapter 18: The soul that sinneth, the same shall die… the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. By what reasoning, then, can it come to pass that the most just God, in punishment of Adam's sin, implanted true sin in all his sons and grandsons? To these comes this: that the Prophet not only says, Destruction is thy own, but also adds: in me only is thy help. By which words two things are signified: that there is no other who can help the human race, now lost, besides God; and that in God there is nothing else but help — hence no temptation, no impulsion to sin, no cause of ruin and perdition, nor, in fine, anything else contrary to help; so that the sense is: from thee, destruction; from me, not destruction, but help only.
Sixth, Scripture teaches that God exhorts men not to harden their hearts, Psalm 94: harden not your hearts; likewise that he knocks at the door of the heart, and is prepared to enter if it be opened, Apocalypse 3: Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall… open to me the door, I will come in to him; likewise that he invites all to himself, Matthew 11: Come to me, all you. God, then, cannot be the cause of sin by properly hardening the hearts of men, and efficaciously working within, as the adversaries say; otherwise God would seem contrary to himself. For to what purpose does he say, Harden not your hearts, if he wills them to be hardened, and himself is he who hardens them as with his own hands? And to what purpose does he stand at the door and knock, if he himself shuts the hearts, and efficaciously works that they be not opened? To what purpose also does he call and invite all, if he himself weighs down their ears, lest perchance they hear, and be converted, and live?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII.
Probatur ex divinis litteris , Deum nec peccare,
nec esse peccati auctorem.
Sequitur tertia pars disputationis de causa
peccati ex parte Dei ; in qua demonstran¬
dum erit ex Scripturis, et Patribus, et natu¬
rali etiam ratione, Deum nec peccare, nec
esse ullo modo peccati auctorem : jam enim
ostendimus, absurdissimum istum errorem
Libertinis cum Calvino, et Beza esse com¬
munem.
Primum igitur Scripturae disertis verbis
affirmant, a Deo peccata non fieri. Genes, i :
Vidit Deus cuncta qux fecerat, et erant val¬
de bona. Deuteron. xxxii : Deus fidelis, et abs¬
que ulla iniquitate. Habac. i : Mundi sunt
oculi tui, ne videant malum , et respicere ad
iniquitatem non poteris. Rom. m : Numquid
iniquus est Deus ? absit, alioqui quomodo judi¬
cabit Deus hunc mundum ? Rom. ix : Num¬
quid iniquitas apud Deum ? absit. I. Joan. m :
Peccatum in eo non est. Sapient, xi : Nihil
odisti eorum, qux fecisti. Et Sapient, xiv :
Odio est Deo impius , et impietas ejus (1). De¬
nique Scriptura plena est ejusmodi testimo¬
niis. Neque adversarii tam sunt impudentes,
ut aperte dicere audeant a Deo peccata fieri,
ita ut ipse peccet : quamvis id ex eorum do¬
ctrina, ut supra ostendimus, colligatur.
Secundo, Scriptura docet Deum non velle
peccata, ac proinde non decrevisse ab seter-
no, ut peccata fierent. Psalm. v : Non Deus
volens iniquitatem tu es. Psal. lxxii : Odisti
omnes qui fornicantur abs te. Ezech. xvili :
Numquid voluntatis mex est mors impii ? dicit
Dominus. II Petr. m : Deus neminem vult peri¬
re (2).
(1) Gen. I, 31; Deut. XXXII, 4; Hab. I, 13; Rom. III, 5; Rom. IX, 14; 1 Joan, III, 5; Sap. XI,
25 ; Sap. XIV, 9. — (2) Psal. V, 5; Psal. LXXII, 27 ; EzerX XV1U, 23; 11 Pet. III, 9.
264
LIBER IL
Ad haec, et similia, quae adduci possent,
respondent Calvinus, etBeza locis citatis, Et
Petrus Martyr in comment. 1. cap. epist. ad
Rom. Deum non velle peecata fieri ea volun¬
tate, quae nobis in Scripturis declarata est,
quam theologi voluntatem signi nominare
solent ; et de hac voluntate esse accipienda
testimonia supra citata. Nihilominus tamen
alia quadam voluntate omnino velle Deum,
ut homines peccent, quoniam alioqui non as¬
sequeretur finem sibi propositum declaran¬
dae gloriae suae in condemnatione, vel puni¬
tione peccati.
Sed isti dum dicunt, voluntatem Dei in
Scripturis patefactam, eam esse, qnae prohi¬
bet peccata ; satis ostendunt ; illam aliam
voluntatem, qua Deus vult peccata, non esse
in Scripturis patefactam ; seque eam non ex
Scripturis, sed, ex proprio capite deduxisse.
Praeterea cum in Deo non possint esse con¬
trariae voluntates, et velle peccatum, ac non
velle peccatum sint contraria; si Deus vult
peccata, sequitur ut in eo non sit voluntas,
quae nollit peccata, ac per hoc sequitur ut
voluntas declarata in Scripturis, sive volun¬
tas signi, nihil aliud sit, nisi voluntas men¬
tiendi. Quid enim est, velle peccata, et ta¬
men velle indicare, ac declarare se nolle
peccata, nisi velle mentiri ? nisi forte men¬
dacium non sit significare te nolle, quod
maxime velis. Adhaec voluntas signi dicitur
a theologis ipsum praeceptum, vel prohibitio;
proinde illa sola Scripturae loca continent vo¬
luntatem signi, quae praecepta, vel prohibi¬
tiones continent. Illa igitur testimonia, quae
nos paulo ante adduximus : Non Deus volens
iniquitatem tu es, et similia quae per modum
indicandi, non per modum imperandi pro¬
ponuntur, non sunt ad voluntatem signi pro¬
prie referenda.
Tertio, Scriptura manifeste docet, Dum
non imperare peccata, ac per hoc non esse
auctorem peccatorum ut causam moralem,
Eccles. xv : Nemini mandavit impie agere.
Hieremiae xix : /Edificaverunt excelsa Baa-
lim , qux non praecepi , nec locutus sum, nec
ascenderunt in cor meum (i). Denique, Deus
severissime prohibet, et punit omnia peccata.
Non igitur imperat, ut fiant, nisi forte secum
ipse pugnare credatur. Quid ad haec loca re¬
spondere soleant adversarii, jam supra dixi¬
mus, et eorum tergiversationem refutavimus,
ubi ostendimus ex sententia adversariorum,
recte colligi, Deum esse peccatorum aucto¬
rem, quia ex eorum sententia, Deus imperat,
ut ea fiant, quse non possunt, nisi male fieri.
Quarto, Scriptura docet Deum non incita¬
re, ac multo minus compellere homines ad
peccandum. Jacob. I : Nemo cum tentatur, di¬
cat quoniam a Deo tentatur. Deus enim inten¬
tator malorum est. Ipse autem neminem tentat.
Eccles. xv : Non dicas, per Deum abest : qux
enim odit, ne feceris. Non dicas , ille me im¬
planavit. Non enim necessarii sunt ei homines
impii ( 2). Quo testimonio Spiritus sancti studio¬
se refutare voluisse videtur sententiam ad¬
versariorum. Nam Petrus ille falso Martyr
nominatus, in comment. 1. cap. ad Roman.
duobus modis dicit, Deum impellere homi¬
nes ad opera mala, uno modo ita deserendo,
ut nulla ratione possit homo tentationi resi¬
stere : altero modo pnebendo peccandi inci¬
tamenta intus in animo, et etiam extra.
Contra priorem modum clamat Spiritus san¬
ctus : Non dicas per Deum abest. Contra poste¬
riorem, addit, Non dicas, ille me implanavit.
Et quoniam Beza docet Deum voluisse, ac
decrevisse, ut primus homo peccaret, et pec¬
cando nos omnes pecatores efficeret, quo¬
niam nisi homines peccatores essent, non
posset Deus gloriam justifice, et misericordiae
suae partirn puniendo, partim miserendo pa¬
tefacere ; ex quo sequitur, ut necessarii Deo
sint homines impii. Ideo Spiritus sanctus addi
voluit illam rationem : Non enim necessarii
sunt ei homines impii.
Adhaec S. Paulus in epist. priore ad Cor.
cap. 10. Fidelis Deus, inquit, qui non sinet
vos tentari supra id quod potestis (3). Profe¬
cto qui non permittit nos tentari supra vires,
multo mius ipse nos tentat, aut impellit ad
peccandum. Petrus Martyr loco citato re¬
spondet ad testimonium S. Jacobi a nobis
primo loco adductum : ac primum rejicit dis¬
tinctionem S. Augustini, qui lib. n, de con¬
sensu Evangelistarum cap. 30. scribit, du¬
plex esse genus tentationis, unum ad proban¬
dum, alterum ad seducendum ; et de priore
scriptum esse : tentavitDeus Abraham, Gen.
xxii, de posteriore scriptum esse : Deus in¬
tentator malorum est, ipse autem neminem
tentat, Jacobi i.
Ilanc distinctionem tanti auctoris, |ct per
se etiam certissimam, atque verissimam su¬
perbe contemnit Petrus Martyr, in qua re
magnum causse sum prmjudicium fecit. Quis
(l)Eccl. XV, 21 ; Hier* XiX, 5. - (2) Jacob. 1, 13; Eocl. XV, 11. — (3) I Corin. X, 13.
enim non malit sancto Augustino, quam isti
Petro solo nomine Martyri fidem habere ?
Affert autem ipse aliam distinctionem, ac di¬
cit, tentationum alias esse externas, alias in¬
ternas, externas interdum esse a Deo, et
ideo non loqui Jacobum de tentationibus,
qua? extrinsecus adhibentur, sed de iis, qua;
intus in animo suggeruntur. Sed quoniam
istas etiam internas tentationes a Deo esse
paulo ante docuerat idem auctor, idcirco
adjungit, sententiam Jacobi esse, Deum non
tentare internis suggestionibus, ita, ut homo
sit excusabilis. Nam in homine Deus invenit
materiam, quasi et seminarium tentationum,
innatam videlicet concupiscentiam.
At luec Petri doctrina repugnat omnino
sententiai B. Jacobi, qui absolute pronuntiat,
a Deo neminem tentari, et Deum intenta¬
torem malorum esse ; non enim recte dicitur
non tentare is, qui revera tentat, licet non
reddat inexcusabilem eum, qui tentatur ;
alioquin ipse etiam Satan dici posset nemi¬
nem tentare, et intentator malorum esse,
cum ipse quoque non reddat homines, quos
tentat, inexcusabiles, et non sit ipse origo
mali, sed inveniat in hominibus materiam,
et seminarium tentationum, insitam videlicet
concupiscentiam.
Quinto Scriptura docet, peccatum esse
proprium creatura! ; ex quo sequitur, ut
nullo modo in creatorem referri possit. Osca!
Xlif : Perditio tua ex te Israel , tantummodo in
me auxilium tuum (1). Hoc est, nihil ex me
habes, nisi adjutorium, ruinam ex te solo ha¬
bes. Joan. vili : Cum loquitur mendacium, ex
pi opiis loquitur, quia mendax est , et 'pater
ejus. I. Joan. m : Qui facit peccatum, ex dia¬
bolo est , Denique I Joan. i. legimus : Deus
lux est, et tenebrae in eo non sunt ullae (2).
Respondent Calvinus et Martyr, originem
mali esse in homine propter natura! corru¬
ptionem, et hoc significari testimonio illo
Oi-sm propheta!, et aliis similibus. At pecca¬
tum primum Adami non habuit originem
ex natura! corruptione, sed ipsum est, quod
naturam corrumpit ; quare si illud etiam
commissum est inpellcnte Deo, ut supra Cal¬
vinum velle demonstravimus, sequitur, ut
vel de Adamo dici non potuerit : Perditio tua
ex te : vel Calvini sententia falsa sit.
Deinde|ipsam concupiscentiam, et peccatum
originis insertum esse inhumana natura ab
ipso Deo, docet Petrus Martyr loco citato in
cap. i. ad Rom. Igitur non solum de Adamo
sed neque de emteris hominibus vere dici
potest : Perditio tua ex te. « At, inquit Mar¬
tyr, concupiscentia, ipsumque originale pec¬
catum insertum quidem est in homine a Deo,
sed in poenam peccati Adami. Ita prima ori¬
go perditionis humana! non est Deus, sed
Adam.
Omitto, quod non dixit Propheta : Perdi¬
tio tua ex Adamo, sed ex te : et quod si pec¬
catum ipsum Adami refertur in Deum, in
Deum quoque referri debeat peccatum no¬
strum originale, quod ex illo fluxit. Hoc tan¬
tum accipio, absurdum, et iuiquum esse, ut
unus puniatur pro alio, ea praisertim poena,
quie sit etiam proprie peccatum, dicente Do¬
mino perEzech. cap. xviii : Anima, quae pec¬
caverit, ipsa morietur ; et filius non portabit
iniquitatem patris (3). Qua igitur ratione fieri
potest, ut Deus justissimus in poenam pecca¬
ti Adami, inseruerit verum peccatum in om¬
nibus ejus filiis, et nepotibus ?
His accedit, quod non solum ait Propheta :
Perditio tua ex te ; sed etiam addit : In me
tantummodo auxilium (puni. Quibus verbis
duo significantur, non esse alium, qui possit
auxiliari generi humano, jam perdito, praeter
Deum ; et in Deo nihil esse aliud, nisi auxi¬
lium, proinde non tentationem, nec impulsio¬
nem ad peccatum, neque ullam ruina!, et
perditionis causam. Neque aliud denique
quod auxilio sit contrarium. Ut sensus sit, ex
te perditio, ex me non perditio, sed auxilium
tantum.
Sexto, Scriptura docet, Deum hortari ho¬
mines, ut non obdurent corda sua, Psalm.
xciv : No lite obdurare contra vestra { 4j. Item
pulsare ad ostium cordis, ac paratum esse
ingredi, si aperiatur ; Apoc. m : Ego sto ad
ostium, et pulso ; si quis aperuerit mihi , intra¬
bo ad eum (3). Item invitare omnes ad se,
Matth. xi : Venite ad me omnes (6). Non igi¬
tur Deus potest esse causa peccati induran¬
do proprie corda hominum, et intus efficaci¬
ter operando, ut adversarii dicunt. Alioqui
videretur Deus sibi ipse contrarius. Quorsum
enim dicit : Nolite obdurare corda vestra, si
ea vult obdurari, et ipse est, qui ea quasi
manibus suis obdurat ; et quorsum stat ad
ostium, et pulsat, si ipse claudit corda, et effi¬
caciter operatur, ne aperiantur ? quorsum
(3) Ezecli XVIII, 20. - (4)
(I) Ose. XHI, 9. — (2) Joan. VIII, 44; 1 Joan. III, 8; 1 Joan. I, 5. —
Ptal. XCX1V, 8. - (5) Apo. 111, 20. -(0) Matth, XI, 28.
Tom. V.
18
UBER II.
56 f»
etiam omnes vocat, atque invitat, si ipse ag¬
gravat aures, nc forte audiant, et convertan¬
tur, et vivant ?