Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book II: That God Is Not the Author of Sin
Chapter 13: Objections from other places of Scripture are solved
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).
The third head contains those places in which it is signified that God impels men to evils, and uses them as instruments for those works which cannot be accomplished without sin. Book 2 of Kings, chapter 24: the anger of the Lord was again kindled against Israel, and stirred up David among them, saying: Go, number Israel. The same book, chapter 16: the Lord hath bid Semei curse David. 3 Kings 22: God says to the evil spirit who had promised that he would deceive Achab: Thou shalt deceive him, and shalt prevail: go forth, and do so. Likewise book 3 of Kings, chapters 11 and 12, and book 4, chapters 9 and 10, the rebellion of Jeroboam against Roboam, and of Jehu against Achab, is said to have been from God; and yet it is agreed that each sinned, together with the people who fell away from their lawful kings. Job 1: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away — where God is said to have taken away what the Chaldeans had taken away, because they had been the instruments of God in that work. Isaias 10: Sennacherib is called the saw in the hand of the Lord, and in the same place the rod of his fury and the staff of his wrath. And chapter 13: Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who shall not seek silver, nor desire gold: But with their arrows they shall kill the children, and shall have no pity upon the sucklings… and their eye shall not spare their sons. And at the beginning of the chapter: I have commanded my sanctified ones — where he calls the Medes and Persians his sanctified, because they were the instruments of his wrath. Jeremias 51: The Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: and his design is against Babylon. And chapter 50 the king of Babylon is called the hammer of the whole earth; and Ezechiel 12 the same king is called the net of God, spread for catching the Israelites. Hither also pertain those places of the Psalms. Psalm 43: thou… hast made us to go aside from thy way. Psalm 104: He turned their heart to hate his people. Psalm 118: Incline my heart into thy testimonies and not to covetousness. Psalm 140: Incline not my heart to evil words. Finally that: And lead us not into temptation, Matthew 6.
I answer: it can be understood in four ways that God impels, or inclines, someone to evil. The first way would be, if God of himself and properly impelled — whether physically, that is, by immediately moving the will, or morally, that is, by truly and properly commanding. But this way is manifestly false, and toward God impious and blasphemous. St. Augustine, tractate 53 on John: “The Jews did the sin; he did not compel them to do it, to whom sin is not pleasing, but he foresaw that they would do it, from whom nothing is hidden.” And a little after: “This altogether the piety of the religious ought to hold unshaken and inviolate, as the Apostle says, when he was treating this same most difficult question: Is there iniquity with God? God forbid.” And book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 20: “How the Lord said to Semei, Curse David — what wise man will understand? For he said it not by commanding, in which case his obedience would be praised; for if he had complied with one commanding, he would have to be praised rather than punished — as we know that afterward he was punished for this.” And so St. Augustine denies that sinners are compelled by God to sin, because there would be iniquity with God; and at the same time he also denies that sinners are properly commanded by God to sin, because then, complying with God, they would have to be praised rather than punished.
This way, then, as impious, being passed over, the second way is that we understand that God is said in the Scriptures to stir up and provoke some to evil, or even to command that they work ill, and to use them as instruments, because he permits them to act ill. For although not everyone who permits something is rightly said to command that it be done, nor to stir up and provoke to it, yet God — without whose permission nothing can be done — when, for the gaining of some certain end, he suffers something to be done, is rightly said, by a certain trope, to command it, and to stir up to it. Just as we also commonly say that the dog was set by the hunter upon the hare, though the hunter only loosened the leash by which the dog was held back from being able to pursue the hare. This we learn openly from the history of Job: for God did not stir up the devil against Job, but to him asking granted the faculty of vexing him, in those words: Behold, all that he hath is in thy hand: only put not forth thy hand upon his person. Nor was it necessary that God incite the devil against Job, or command him to harry that holy man so atrociously; for the devil himself of himself sufficiently hated Job, and desired to try all his power upon him; but because he could not harm him unless God permitted — and for as long, as far, and in what manner he permitted — therefore Scripture attributes that whole affliction to God rather than to the devil. For Job says: The Lord gave, the Lord hath taken away; and the devil said: put forth thy hand a little, and touch all that he hath, and see if he blesseth thee not to thy face; and God himself says: thou hast moved me against him, that I should afflict him without cause. We see, then, that those actions are attributed to God, when he only permitted them to be done. The same is evident from Augustine, who, book 2 to Simplicianus, question 2 [al. 1], explaining the testimony of Job, says that Satan of himself had the evil will of harming St. Job, and asked nothing of God but the permission of executing what he had already conceived. And book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 21 [al. 43], he speaks thus: “When you hear, I the Lord have seduced that prophet, or, he hardens whom he will, think of his deserts, whom he permitted so to be hardened, or seduced.”
The third way is that God is said to stir up to evil, or to command evil, or to use the evil wills of the impious as instruments, because he not only permits the impious to act ill, but also deserts those who are afflicted, and so grants to the impious the victory over them. So God is said to have commanded the spirit to deceive Achab, because he not only permitted the spirit to speak lies through the mouths of all Achab's prophets, but also did not give him the light by which he might discern the lie from the truth. So too God is said to have used the Assyrian king as a rod and a staff, or even a hammer and an axe, for smiting the sons of Israel, because he not only permitted that king to be armed against the Israelites, but also deserted his own people, turned aside the help of his sword, and did not aid them in the war, as is said in Psalm 88. So also St. Augustine, in epistle 80 [al. 130], question 2, expounds that, And lead us not into temptation: “It is understood: suffer us not, by deserting us, to be led in.”
But if perchance these ways do not in all things satisfy, let another come, which will altogether satisfy. God, then, not only permits the impious to do many evils, not only deserts the pious, so that they are compelled to suffer what is brought upon them by the impious; but he also presides over the evil wills themselves, and rules and governs them, twists and bends them, working in them invisibly — so that, although by their own vice they are evil, yet by the divine providence they are ordered, not positively but permissively, to one evil rather than another. Hugh of St. Victor explains this, book 1 On the Sacraments, part 4 [al. 5], chapter 29, in these words: “But concerning that mode of the divine moderation by which, presiding, he tempers and inclines even evil wills at his own pleasure by a hidden and invisible operation, this is to be held: that it be believed that God gives to evil wills not their corruption, but their order.” And below: “To the evil will, then, the vice by which it is evil is from itself; but the order by which, through its willing, it is directed whether to this or to that, is from God. In the will, then, is the vice, and it is itself evil, and from it the will is evil. But in the willing there is both vice, insofar as the willing is from an evil will, and order, insofar as it is directed to this or to that by him who disposes. And when the willing itself is toward some particular thing, that it is toward this is evil, because it is from an evil will; but that it is toward this rather than toward that is good, because it is order, and is from him who disposes well. The evil will, therefore, can be corrupted in itself and dissolved through its own vice, which is not given it from elsewhere; but it cannot be hurled headlong outside itself through its willing, save where a way is opened to it. And he who opens a way to ruin for one rushing headlong where he wills, in a certain manner inclines it — not by impelling, but by permitting and by not holding; nor is he to it the author of its rushing, but the orderer of its going.” Thus he. And to these can be added, from St. Thomas in the commentary on chapter 9 to the Romans, that God not only inclines evil wills to one thing rather than another by permitting them to be borne to the one and not permitting them to be borne to the other, as Hugh rightly taught; but also positively, by inclining to one and turning away from another — not indeed by moving the will of himself and physically to the one and removing it from the other, which would seem to prejudice the liberty of choice, but occasionally, as St. Thomas speaks, and morally — by sending in, namely, some good thought, from which the evil man, through his own vice, takes occasion of judging it better to harm this man than that, or to serve this iniquity rather than that. And according to this way St. Augustine and Theodoret expound that of Psalm 104: He turned their heart to hate his people. For they say that God did this not by perverting the hearts of the Egyptians, but by doing good to his own people — whence the Egyptians took occasion of greater hatred. Thus, then, God, though he makes not evil wills, yet presides over them, and rules and orders them unto the good of his elect — just as (as St. Basil teaches, in the oration that God is not the author of evils) physicians use the viper's venom, which they themselves did not make, for the curing of bodies.
And from these things all the places cited above can be explained. For as to what is said in book 2 of Kings, chapter 24 — that David was moved by God to number the people, in which numbering he gravely sinned — it is explained from book 1 of Paralipomenon, chapter 21, where we read thus: And Satan rose up against Israel: and moved David to number Israel. And so he who properly incited David to the sin was not God, but the devil; yet this incitement is attributed also to God, because, unless God had permitted, the devil would not have done it; and God permitted, because the sins of the people deserved it. To that about the cursing of Semei: it has already been said how it is to be understood that God commanded Semei to curse David. For God is said to have commanded, because he inclined the corrupted will of Semei to cursing David; and he inclined it (as we said from Hugh) not by compelling, but by opening to him the way to this evil and shutting it to others — that is, by permitting that he should will and carry through this evil alone, out of the many for which he was ready. The same is the answer to the other, about the spirit deceiving Achab. For the spirit himself offered himself to God for deceiving the king, and needed not so much the divine command as the divine permission, since of himself he was most prompt to every evil — nay, most eager to harm. But Calvin presses, book 1 of the Institutes, chapter 18, §1: “If the blinding and madness of Achab is a judgment of God, the figment of bare permission vanishes; for it would be ridiculous that a judge should only permit, and not also decree what he wills to be done, and command the execution to his ministers.” But to St. Augustine it did not seem ridiculous that the judge should only permit, when he says, book On Grace and Free Choice, chapter 21: “When you hear, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and, he hardens whom he will, think of his deserts, whom he permitted so to be hardened and seduced.” Where, when St. Augustine says that God, on account of the deserts of men, permits the deception and the hardening, he shows well enough that God permits those things as judge. For although even he who is not a judge is wont simply to permit, yet if one have it in his hand to hinder or to permit that one harm another, and decree not to hinder but to permit, that in this way he may punish him who is worthy of such punishment, he assuredly acts the judge in that permission.
To the other two, about Jeroboam and Jehu, the same answer could be applied; but I think it can more probably be said that each was a lawful king, and properly elected by God. For although Calvin, book 1 of the Institutes, last chapter, will have it that Jeroboam and Jehu, by falling away from their own lords and seizing the kingdom, gravely sinned — and Peter Martyr holds the same of Jeroboam, in the commentary on chapter 11 of book 3 of Kings — yet St. Augustine, book 17 On the City of God, chapters 21 and 22 [al. 7], openly teaches that neither Jeroboam nor the people sinned in that defection: “It appeared,” says he, “that in that matter there was no sin either of the king of Israel or of the people, but that the will of God avenging was fulfilled.” And assuredly Scripture manifestly favors St. Augustine. For in book 3 of Kings, chapter 11, after the prophet Ahias had in God's name promised the kingdom to Jeroboam, he subjoins these words: If then thou wilt hearken to all that I shall command thee, and wilt walk in my ways, and do what is right before me, keeping my commandments and my precepts, as David my servant did: I will be with thee, and will build thee up a faithful house, as I built a house for David. But certainly God would not compare Jeroboam with David, nor promise him protection in the kingdom and a faithful succession, if he had known him to be not a true king, but a tyrant and an invader. Moreover, chapter 12, when Roboam would lead out an armed line against Jeroboam, to recover the whole kingdom, God sent the prophet Semeias to say to king Roboam and to all the people: You shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel… for this thing is from me. Which being heard, they ceased from the intention of warring, and acknowledged Jeroboam as lawful king, and created by God over the ten tribes, as Roboam was king over the tribe of Juda and Benjamin. And so, although afterward Jeroboam was most wicked, and made a schism in religion, yet when he received the kingdom he was good, and by the divine election, and the consensus and calling of the whole people, began to reign lawfully. The same is agreed of Jehu: for he did not canvass for the kingdom, but to him, thinking of no such thing, Eliseus sent one of the sons of the prophets, to anoint him in God's name king over Israel, and to command him to slay king [Joram son of] Achab, queen Jezabel, and to exterminate all his house. And then, when he had accomplished this, the Lord said to him: Because thou hast diligently executed that which was right and pleasing in my eyes, and hast done to the house of Achab according to all that was in my heart: thy children shall sit upon the throne of Israel to the fourth generation, book 4 of Kings, chapter 10. And who would believe that God would have praised the deed of Jehu, and would have said that he had diligently done what was right, if Jehu had rebelled from ambition, and unjustly slain his lord, as Calvin teaches? Calvin, then, has not rightly proved that the things which are perversely done by men are from God, on the ground that he was the author of the kingdom of Jeroboam and of Jehu. But Calvin objects that in Osee, chapter 8, God seems to disapprove the kingdom of Jeroboam, when he says: They have reigned, but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew not — which place St. Jerome also interprets of Jeroboam. I answer: in two ways can Jeroboam be said to have reigned not from God, that is, God not approving. For first, this place can be expounded (as St. Thomas admonishes, in the commentary on chapter 13 of the epistle to the Romans) of the use of the kingdom, not of its institution; and in this way it is certain that the kingdom of Jeroboam was not from God, nor of the others who followed him — for they were all impious kings. Next, this same place can be expounded of the cause, or occasion, of the institution of Jeroboam's kingdom; for that was not from God, and thereby neither was the institution itself — if, namely, the occasion be regarded — from God. For God did not will that Solomon sin so gravely as to deserve the division of the kingdom, nor did he absolutely will the kingdom to be divided; yet, Solomon's sin being posited, it pleased God that the kingdom be divided, and therefore he himself handed over part of that kingdom to Jeroboam. By which reasoning we are wont to reconcile those two places: God made not death, Wisdom 1; and: The Lord killeth and maketh alive, 1 Kings 2. For God truly gives to death whom he wills; yet he would not do it, had not the whole human race contracted the guilt of death in the first parent. Nor can it be perceived that St. Jerome meant anything else, from this: that he expounds the testimony of Osee not of Jeroboam alone, but also of Saul. Now it is agreed that Saul was a true and lawful king, and elected by God, according to that of 1 Kings 10: surely you see him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people. And yet, because the people sinned in asking a king, as we have in 1 Kings 12, the occasion of electing Saul, or of instituting kingship in the people of God, was not from God; and God could truly say through the Prophet: They have reigned, but not by me. But of this place enough has been said. To that of Psalm 43 — thou hast made our paths decline from thy way — I answer that that declining of the paths from the ways of the Lord is not a declining unto sins, but a declining from the divine help and favor. For there precedes in that place: All these things have come upon us, yet we have not forgotten thee: and we have not done wickedly in thy covenant. And a little after follows: and thou hast made our paths decline from thy way; and presently the explication is adjoined: For thou hast humbled us in the place of affliction: and the shadow of death hath covered us. Add that, although it seem to be said by affirmation, thou hast made our paths decline from thy way, yet we can understand the negation which is had at the beginning of the verse, according to the rules of the Hebrews, so that the sense is: our heart hath not turned back, and thou hast not made our paths decline from thy way — that is, with thee as helper we have not declined from thy way; so far is our heart from having turned back from thee. And so St. Jerome renders: “Our heart hath not turned back, nor have our paths declined from thy ways.” To the other places there is no need of another answer; for we have already expounded how they are to be understood.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Solvuntur objectiones ex aliis Scriptura ; locis. Tertium caput continet ea loca, in quibus significatur, Deum impellere homines ad mala, et iis quasi instrumentis uti ad ea opera, qua) sine peccato perfici nequeunt, lib. II Regum cap. xxiv. Addidit irasci furor Domini contra Israel , commovit que David in eis dicentem , Vade, numera Israel. Eodem lib. cap. xvi : Dominus praecepit Semei, ut malediceret Da- vidi. III Reg. xxil. dicit Deus spiritui malo, qui promiserat se decepturum Achab, Deci¬ pies et praevalebis , vade, et fac ita (1). Item lib. III. Regum cap. xi. et xii. et lib. IV. cap. ix. et x. dicitur a Deo fuisse rebellio Jeroboam, contra Roboam; et Jehu contra Achab; et tamen constat utrumque peccasse una cum populo, qui a legitimis regibus de¬ fecit. Job. i. Dominus dedit , Dominus abstu¬ lit (2), ubi dicitur Deus abstulisse, quae Cal- dsei abstulerant, quia illi instrumenta Dei fuerant in eo opere. Isaiae x, Scnnache- rib dicitur Serra in manu Domini. Et ibi¬ dem, virga furoris, et baculus irae ejus. Et cap. xiii : Ecce ego suscitabo contra vos Medos, qui de argento non cogitabunt , nec aurum desiderabunt : arcubus suis pueros configent , et fructus ventris non miserebuntur, nec par¬ cet filiis oculus eorum (3). Et ab initio capi¬ tis : Praecepi, inquit, sanctificatis meis. Ubi Medos et Persas sanctificatos suos vocat, quia instrumenta erant irae suae. Hieremiae li : Excitavit Dominus Spiritum Regum Medo¬ rum : (quoniam cogitatio ejus est contra Ba¬ bel (4). Et c. l, vocatur rex Babylonis mal¬ leus universae terrae. Et Ezech. xii, vocatur idem rex rete Dei, ad capiendos Israelitas expansum. Huc etiam pertinent loca illa psal¬ morum. Psal. xliii : Declinasti semitas nostras (1)11 ReS XXIV, 1; ibid. XVI, 10; III Reg. XXII, 22. - (2) Job. I, SI. - (3) Tsai. XIII, 17. - (4) Hier LT, 1 1 . CAPUT XIII. 277 a via tua. Psal. civ : Convertit cor eorum , ut odirent populum ejus. Psal.cxvm : Incluta cor meum in testimonia tua , et non in avaritiam. Psalm. cxl : Non declines cor meum in verba malitiae. Denique illud : Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, Matth. vi (1). Respondeo, quatuor modis posse intelligi, ut Deus impellat, sive inclinet aliquem ad malum. Primus modus esset, Si Deus per se, et proprie impelleret, vel physice, id est, movendo immediate voluntatem, vel moraliter, id est, vere et proprie impe¬ rando. Sed hic modus est manifeste falsus, et in Deum impius, ac blasphemus. S. Au¬ gustinus tractat. 53. in Joanncm : « Fe¬ cerunt, inquit, peccatum Judxei, quod eos non compulit facere, cui peccatum non pla¬ cet, sed facturos esse praevidit, quem nihil latet. » Et paulo post : « IIoc omnino pietas religiosorum inconcussum debet, inviolatum- que tenere, sicut Apostolus dicit, cum eam- dem tractaret difficili imum quaestionem, num- quid iniquitas apud Deum? absit. » Et lib. de gratia et libero arbitrio cap. 20 : « Quo¬ modo, inquit, dixerit Dominus Scmei male¬ dicere David, quis sapiens, et intelligct? non enim jubendo dixit, ubi obedientia laudare¬ tur. Nam si jubenti obtemperasset, laudandus potius, quam puniendus esset, sicut ex hoc postea novimus esse punitum. » Itaque S. Augustinus negat peccatores compelli a Deo ad peccatum, quia esset iniquitas apud Deum ; et simul etiam negat a Deo proprie imperari peccatoribus, ut peccent, quia illi obtempe¬ rantes Deo, laudandi potius, quam puniendi essent. Hoc igitur modo, ut impio, praxtermisso, secundus modus est, ut intelligamus, Deum in Scripturis dici excitare, et provocare ali¬ quos ad malum, vel etiam imperare, ut male operentur, eisque tamquam instrumentis uti, quia permittit cos male agere. Quamvis enim non omnis, qui aliquid permittit, recte dica¬ tur imperare, ut illud fiat, neque excitare, et provocare ad illud, tamen Deus, sine cu¬ jus permissione nihil fieri potest, cum ad certum aliquem finem consequendum, fieri sinit aliquid, recte dicitur per quemdam tro¬ pum, illud imperare, atque ad illud excitare. Quemadmodum etiam usitate dicimus, a ve¬ natore immissum fuisse canem in leporem, quamvis venator funem solum laxaverit, quo canis retinebatur ne leporem persequi pos¬ set. Id aperte discimus ex liist. Job : neque enim Deus diabolum excitavit in Job, sed petenti facultatem eum vexandi concessit il¬ lis verbis: Ecce universa , (pix habet , in manu tua sunt, tantum in eum non extendas manum tuam (2). Neque necesse erat ut Deus incita¬ ret diabolum in Job, neque ut illi imperaret, ut sanctum illum virum tam atrociter di¬ vexaret. Ipse enim diabolus satis per se ode¬ rat Jobum, et omnem suam potentiam in eum experiri cupiebat, quia tamen ei nocere non poterat, nisi Deus permitteret, et quan- diu, quousque, quomodo permitteret, ideo Scriptura totam illam afflictionem Deo po¬ tius, quam diabolo tribuit. Nam et Job dicit: Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit. Et diabolus dixit : Extende manum tuam , et tange cuncta , (pix possidet; nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi. Et Deus ipse dicit : Tu autem commovisti me, ut affligerem eum frustra (3). Videmus igitur Deo tribui actiones illas, cnm solum eas fieri ipse permiserit. Idem patet ex Augustino, qui lib. ii. ad Simplicianum, qunest. 2. explicans testimo¬ nium Job, dicit, Satanam per se habuisse malam voluntatem nocendi S. Job, a Deo au¬ tem nihil petivisse, nisi permissionem exe- quendi quod jam conceperat. Et lib. de gra¬ tia et libero arbitrio cap. 13. sic ait : « Cum auditis, inquit, ego Dominus seduxi Prophe¬ tam illum, vel quem vult indurat, ejus me¬ rita cogitate, quem sic obdurari, vel seduci permisit. » Tertius modus est, ut dicatur Deus exci¬ tare ad malum, vel imperare malum, vel uti malis impiorum voluntatibus tamquam in¬ strumentis, quia non solum permittat impios male agere, sed etiam deserat eos, qui affli¬ guntur, et sic donet impiis in eos victoriam. Sic dicitur Deus imperasse spiritui, ut deci¬ peret Aehab, quia non solum pemiisit spiri¬ tui, ut loqueretur mendacia per ora omnium Prophetarum Achab. Sed etiam non dedit illi lumen, quo discerneret mendacium a ve¬ ritate. Sic etiam dicitur Deus usus Assyrio Rege, tamquam virga, et baculo, vel etiam malleo, et secux-i, ad percutiendos filios Is- rael, quia non solum permisit Regem illum armari in Israelitas, sed etiam deseruit po¬ pulum suum, avertit adjutorium gladii sui, (1) Psal. XLIII, 19; ibid. CIV, 25; ib. CXVIII, 36 ; ibid CXL, 4; Matth. VI, 13. - (2) Job. I, 12. — (3) Job. I, 21, ibid. 41; ibid. II, 3. 278 UBER II. et non est auxiliatus ei in bello, ut dicitur in Psal. lxxxyiii. Sic etiam exponit S. Augu¬ stinus in epist. 80. quoest. 2. illud : Et ne nos inferas in tentationem : « Intelligitur, in¬ quit, ne nos inferri deserendo permittas. » Sed si forte isti modi non per omnia satis- , faciant, accedat alius, qui omnino satisfaciet. Deus igitur non solum permittit impios agere multa mala, noc solum deserit pios, ut co¬ gantur pati quae ab impiis inferuntur ; sed etiam praesidet ipsis voluntatibus malis, eas- que regit et gubernat, torquet ac flectit in eis invisibiliter operando, ut licet vitio proprio malae sint, tamen a divina providentia ad unum potius malum, quam ad aliud non po¬ sitive, sed permissive ordinentur. Explicat hoc Hugo de S. "Victore lib. i. de Sacramentis par. 5. cap. 29. his verbis : De illo autem modo divinae moderationis, quo malas etiam voluntates praesidens occulta, et invisibili operatione ad suum arbitrium tem¬ perat et inclinat, hoc sentiendum, ut creda¬ tur, Deus malis voluntatibus non dare cor¬ ruptionem, sed ordinem. »Et infra : Yoluntati ergo malae, vitium est ex ipsa, quo mala est; ordo autem ex Deo est, quo per velle sive ad hoc, sive ad illud est. In voluntate ergo vitium est, et ipsum malum est, et ex ipso voluntas mala est. In velle autem et vitium est, in quantum velle ex voluntate mala est, et ordo est, in quantum ad hoc, vel ad hoc ex disponente est. Et cum ipsum velle ad hoc aliquid est, malum est, quod ad hoc est, quia mala voluntate est : quod autem potius ad hoc, quam ad illud est, bonum est, quia ordo est, et ex bene disponente est. Potest ergo voluntas mala in se corrumpi, et resolvi per proprium vitium, quod ei aliunde non datur : sed non potest per velle extra se praecipitari, nisi qua ei via aperitur. Et qui praecipiti qua vult ad ruinam viam aperit, quodammodo ipsam inclinat, non impellendo, sed permit¬ tendo, et non tenendo; nec auctor illi est ruendi, sed incedendi ordinator. Haec ille. , Ilis autem addi potest ex S. Thoma in commcnt. cap. 9. ad Roman. Deum non so¬ lum inclinare voluntates malas ad unum po¬ tius, quand ad aliud permittendo, ut feran¬ tur in unum, et non permittendo, ut ferantur in aliud, ut Hugo recte docuit ; sed etiam positive, inclinando in unum, et avertendo ab alio, non quidem per se, et physice mo¬ vendo voluntatem ad unum, et removendo ab alio, quod libertati arbitrii pramuliearc videretur, sed occasionaliter, ut S. Thomas loquitur, et moraliter, immittendo videlicet cogitationem aliquam bonam, ex qua malus ob suum vitium occasionem sumat judicandi, melius esse huic nocere, quam illi, sive huic potius iniquitati servire, quam illi. Et juxta hunc modum S. Augustinus et Theodoretus exponunt illud Psal. civ : Convertit cor eo¬ rum , ut odirent populum ejus (1). Dicunt enim Deum id fecisse non perventendo corda Ae¬ gyptiorum, sed benefaciendo populo suo, unde A5gyptii majoris odii occasionem acce¬ perunt. Ita igitur Deus, licet malas non fa¬ ciat voluntates, eis tamen praesidet, et regit, atque ordinat in bonum electorum suorum, quemadmodum (ut docet S. Basilius in ora¬ tione, quod Deus non sit auctor malorum) medici utuntur viperee veneno, quod ipsi non fecerunt ad corpora curanda. Atque ex iis explicari possunt omnia loca supra citata. Quod enim lib. II. Reg. cap. xxiv. dicitur a Deo commotum Davidem, ut muneraret populum, in qua numeratione gra¬ viter peccavit, ex ! lib. I Paralip. cap. xxi. explanatur, ubi sic legimus : Consurrexit au¬ tem Satan contra Israel , et incitavit David ut numeraret Israel (2). Itaque is, qui proprie Davidem incitavit ad peccatum, non Deus, sed diabolus fuit : tribuitur tamen hmc inci¬ tatio etiam Deo, quia nisi Deus permisisset, diabolus id non fecisset. Permisit autem Deus, quia id peccata populi merebantur. Ad illud de maledictione Semei; jam di¬ ctura est, quemadmodum intelligi debeat, Deum praecepisse Semei, ut malediceret Da- vidi. Dicitur enim Deus praecepisse, quia cor¬ ruptam Semei voluntatem inclinavit ad ma¬ ledicendum Davidi. Inclinavit autem (ut di¬ ximus ex Hugone) non compellendo, sed ape¬ riendo illi viam ad hoc malum, et claudendo ad alia, id est, permittendo, ut hoc solum malum vellet et perageret, ex multis, ad quai parata erat. Eadem est responsio ad aliud de spiritu decipiente Achabum. Ipse enim spiritus ob¬ tulit se Deo, ad decipiendum Regem, nec tam imperio, quam permissione divina egebat, cum ex se promptissimus ad omne malum, imo et cupidissimus nocendi esset. Sed ur¬ get Calvinus lib. I. Institut. cap. 18. §. H : « Si Dei judicium estexc&catio, etamentia A- chab, nudee permissionis figmentum evane- (I) Psal. CIV, 25. - (2) I Paralip. XXI. I. CAPUT XIII. 279 scit : quia ridiculum esset, judicem tantum permittere, non etiam decernere quid fieri velit, et mandare exeeutionem ministris. » At S. Augustino ridiculum non est visum judicem tantum permittere, cum ait lib. de gratia et libero arbitrio cap. 23 : « Cum au¬ ditis, Ego Dominus decepi Prophetam illum, et quem vult indurat, ejus merita cogitate, quem sic obdurari, et seduci permisit. » Ubi cum S. Augustinus dicit, ob merita homi¬ num Deum permittere deceptionem et indu- rationem, satis ostendit, Deum ut judicem illa permittere. Quamvis enim simpliciter permittere soleat etiam is, qui non est judex; tamen si quis in manu sua habeat impedire, vel permittere, ut uuus alteri noceat, et de¬ cernat non impedire, sed permittere, ut hac ratione puniat eum, qui tali poena dignus est, is profecto judicem in ea permissione aget. Ad alia duo de Jcroboam, et Jehu ea¬ dem responsio adhiberi posset, sed probabi¬ lius dici posse arbitror , utrumque fuisse legitimum Regem, et a Deo proprie electum. Quamvis enim Calvinus lib. i. Institutionum cap. ult. velit Jeroboam et Jehu deficiendo a propriis dominis, et regnum invadendo graviter peccasse, et idem de Jcroboam sentiat Petrus Martyr in commentario cap. xi. lib. iii. Regum, tamen S. Augustinus lib. xyii. de Civit. Dei cap. 21. et 22. aperte do¬ cet, neque Jeroboam, neque populum in ea defectione peccasse : « Apparuit, inquit, nul¬ lum, in ea re nec regis Israel, nec populi fuisse peccatum, sed voluntatem Dei vindicantis im¬ pletam. » Et profecto Scriptura sancto Augu¬ stino manifeste favet. Nam lib. iii. Regum cap. xi. posteaquam Ahias propheta nomine Dei regnum promiserat Jeroboamo, sub¬ jungit bsec verba : Si audieris omnia, quae praecepero tibi , et ambulaveris in viis meis , et feceris quod rectum est coram me , custo¬ diens mandata mea , et praecepta mea , sicut fecit David servus meus , ero tecum, et aedi¬ ficabo tibi domum fidelem , quomodo aedifi¬ cavi David domum (1). At certe Deus non con¬ ferret Jeroboamum cum Davide, neque illi promitteret protectionem in regno, et fide¬ lem successionem; si eum non verum Re¬ gem, sed Tyrannum, et invasorem fuisse scivisset. Praiterea cap. 12. cum Roboam aciem ar¬ matam educere vellet in Jeroboam, ut uni¬ versum regnum recuperaret, misit Deus Se- meiam prophetam, qui diceret regi Roboam, et universo populo : Non ascendetis , neque bel¬ labitis contra fratres vestros , filios Israel. A me enim factum est verbum hoc (2). Quo au¬ dito, cessaverunt ab intentione bellandi, et agnoverunt Jeroboam ut legitimum regem, atque a Deo creatum super decem tribus, quemadmodum rex erat Roboam super tri¬ bum Juda et Benjamin. Itaque licet postea Jeroboam scelestissimus fuerit, et schisma fecerit in religione, tamen cum regnum acce¬ pit, bonus erat, et electione divina, ac totius populi consensu et vocatione legitime regnare coepit. Quod idem constat de Jehu : non enim regnum ambivit, sed ad eum, nihil tale co¬ gitantem, misit Elisaeus unum de filiis Pro¬ phetarum, qui eum nomine Dei ungeret re¬ gem super Israel, et imperaret, ut occideret Achabum regem, Jezabelem reginam, et om¬ nem ejus domum exterminaret. Ac deinde cum id ipse perfecisset, dixit ad eum Domi¬ nus : Quia studiose egisti quod rectum erat, et placebat in oculis meis, et omnia , quae erant in corde meo , fecisti contra domum Achab, filii tui usque ad quartam generationem sedebunt super thronum Israel , lib. IV Regum c. x. Quis autem credat, Deum laudaturum fuisse factum Jehu, ac dicturum, eum studiose fecisse, quod rectum erat, si Jehu ex ambi¬ tione rebellasset, et injuste Dominum suum occidisset, ut Calvinus docet? Non igitur recte probavit Calvinus, ex Deo esse, quae perverse fiunt ab hominibus, quia fuerit au¬ ctor regni Jeroboam et Jehu. Sed objicit Calvinus, quodinOsesecap. vm. Deus videatur improbare regnumllieroboam, cum ait : Ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me; principes exsiterunt, et non cognovi (4). Quem locum S. Hieronymus etiam de Jeroboam interpretatur. Respondeo, duobus modis dici posse Jeroboam regnasse non ex Deo, id est, Deo non approbante. Primum enim ex¬ poni potest hic locus (ut S. Thomas admonet in comment. cap. 13. epistola; ad Romanos) de usu regni, non de institutione, et hoc modo certum est, non fuisse ex Deo regnum Jeroboam, neque aliorum, qui cum secuti sunt. Omnes enim impii reges fuerunt. Deinde potest hic idem locus exponi de causa, sive occasione institutionis regni Je¬ roboam, ea siquidem non fuit ex Deo, ac (1)111 Reg. XI, 38. - (2) III Reg. XII. 24. - (3) IV Reg. X. 30. — (4) Oso.fe. VIII. 4. 280 LIBER II. per hoc nec ipsa institutio, nimirum si occa¬ sionem rcspiciatur, fuit ex Deo. Deus enim non volebat Salomonem ita graviter peccare, ut mereretur divisionem regni, neque abso¬ lute volebat regnum dividi : tamen posito peccato Salomonis, placuit Deo, ut regnum divideretur, et ideo ipse partem ejus regni tradidit Jeroboam. Qua ratione conciliare solemus duo illa loca : Deus mortem non fe¬ cit, Sapient. I. Et : Dominus mortificat et vi¬ vificat (1). I Reg. ii. Deus enim vere neci dat quos vult, sed tamen id non faceret, nisi in primo parente totum genus humanum mortis reatum contraxisset. Neque aliud voluisse S . Hieronymum , perspici potest ex eo, quod ipse testimonium Oseai non exponit de solo Jeroboam, sed etiam de Saule. Constat autem Saulem verum et legitimum regem fuisse, et a Deo electum, juxta illud I Regum, x : Certe videtis quem elegit Dominus, quoniam non est illi similis in omni populo (2). Et tamen quia peccavit po¬ pulus in petendo rege, ut habemus 1 Reg. xii, occasio eligendi Saulem, sive instituen¬ di regni in populo Dei, non fuit ex Deo, et vere dicere potuit Deus per Prophetam : Ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me. Sed de hoc loco satis multa dicta sunt. Ad illud Psal. xliii : Declinasti semitas no¬ stras a via tua (3), respondeo, declinationem illam semitarum a viis Domini, non esse de¬ clinationem ad peccata, sed declinationem ab auxilio, et favore divino. Praecedit enim in eo loco : Hiec omnia venerunt super nos. Nec obliti sumus te, et inique non egimus in testamento tuo. Et paulo post sequitur : Et declinasti semitas nostras a via tua. Et mox adjungitur explicatio : Quoniam humiliasti nos in loco afflictionis, et cooperuit nos umbra mortis. Adde, quod licet videatur per affirmatio¬ nem dici, Declinasti semitas nostras a via tua, tamen possumus subintelligere negationem, quae habetur ad initium versiculi, juxta regu¬ las Hebraeorum, ut sensus sit : Non recessit re¬ tro cor nostrum, et non declinasti semitas no¬ stras a via tua, id est, te adjutore non de¬ clinavimus avia tua, tantum abest ut retro¬ cesserit a te cor nostrum. Itaque S. Hiero¬ nymus vertit : « Non x-ecessit retro cor no¬ strum, necdeclinaveruntsemitae nostra; a viis (l) Sap. I, 13. Reg. II, 6 - (2) I Reg. X. - 11, 30; Jos. XI, 20; I Reg. II, 23; III Reg. XII, 15; XX, 7; Joan. XII, 39; Rom. I, 28; ibid. IX, 18. t tuis. » Ad alia loca non est opus alia respon¬ sione. Jaun enim exposuimus quemadmodum intelligenda sint.