Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book II: That God Is Not the Author of Sin
Chapter 14: Objections drawn from other testimonies 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 fourth head contains those places in which God is said to blind or harden the hearts of men, so that they neither will nor can act well. Exodus 7, 8, and 9: the Lord hardened Pharao's heart. Deuteronomy 2: the Lord… had hardened his spirit — Sehon's. Josue 11: it was the sentence of the Lord, that their hearts should be hardened. 1 Kings 2: they hearkened not to the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them. 3 Kings 12: the king condescended not to the people, for the Lord was turned away from him. Job 12: He changeth the speech of the true speakers, and taketh away the doctrine of the aged. He… changes the heart of the princes, and deceiveth them that they walk in vain where there is no way… They shall grope as in the dark, and not in the light, and he shall make them stagger like men that are drunk. Isaias 19: The Lord hath mingled in the midst thereof the spirit of giddiness. And chapter 63: Why hast thou made us to err, O Lord, from thy ways: why hast thou hardened our heart, that we should not fear thee? Jeremias 20: Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I am deceived. John 12: Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, etc. Romans 1: God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient. And Romans 9: he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth.
I answer: by the common judgment of the holy Fathers, God is not the cause of the blinding and hardening positively (so to speak), but negatively — namely, by permitting, by deserting, by not having mercy. And that this is just cannot be denied, since God deserts not, unless deserted; and it is just that they who desert be deserted, as St. Augustine teaches, book On Nature and Grace, chapter 26, tractate 2 on John. And although Peter Martyr, in the commentary on the first chapter to the Romans, confesses that all the Fathers so expound (as we have said), yet I shall not grudge to bring forward some testimonies of St. Augustine. In epistle 105 to Sixtus, then, he speaks thus: “God hardens not by imparting malice, but by not imparting mercy.” Likewise book 1 to Simplicianus, question 2, about the middle: “For God to harden is to be unwilling to have mercy; nor is anything inflicted by him whereby the man becomes worse, but only that whereby he might become better is not bestowed.” And book 5 against Julian, chapter 3: “When therefore a man is said to be handed over to his own desires, thence he becomes guilty: that, deserted by God, he yields to them and consents; is conquered, captured, dragged, possessed.” Finally, on John, tractate 53: “So God blinds, so he hardens — by deserting, by not helping; which he can do by a hidden judgment, by an iniquitous one he cannot.” Like things has St. John Chrysostom, homily 3 on the epistle to the Romans, where he sets the example of a general deserting his soldiers in the battle-line; like things also St. Gregory, book 25 of the Morals, chapters 12 and 13, and Damascene, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 20, Isidore, book 2 On the Highest Good, chapter 19. But because not every permission or desertion can be called blinding or hardening, the whole matter must be explained a little more diligently.
First, then, it is to be observed that blindness of mind, as also hardening of heart, is a sin, a cause of sin, and an effect or punishment of sin. For thus writes St. Augustine, book 5 against Julian, chapter 3: “Blindness of mind, which God the illuminator alone can remove, is both a sin, whereby God is not believed in; and a punishment of sin, whereby the proud heart is punished with a worthy chastisement; and a cause of sin, when by the error of a blind heart something evil is committed.” Which same is to be understood of the hardening of the heart, for in that place St. Augustine speaks indifferently of blindness and hardening. And in the Scriptures men are reprehended for both, as for a true and very great sin. Matthew 13: the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. And so the blindness of heart of which we speak is not a mere lack of light, but a depraved affection, by which one repels the divine illuminations, or sets an impediment against being illuminated by God. Wherefore such men are said, Matthew 13, seeing to see and not to see: because they see indeed whence they could be illuminated, but from their own malice will not attend; and thus their own malice blinds them. By like reasoning, the hardening of the heart is a depraved affection by which one contemns the divine admonitions, whether internal or external, and ever more and more resists them, until he come to that state that he does not even feel them. Hence the heart is called hard, stony, heavy, gross, when it is not moved at the divine rebukes and chidings, because things of that kind neither yield nor feel; as contrariwise the heart is called tender, soft, and fleshy, when it easily acquiesces to God, or to a man admonishing, because soft and tender flesh is easily penetrated, and perceives even slight prickings. “The hard heart” (says St. Bernard, book 1 On Consideration) “does not even shudder at itself, because it does not feel itself; it is not moved by prayers, yields not to threats, is hardened the more by scourges.” Hence we have it that that permission by which God suffered the first man to fall, and by which even now he suffers the just to sin, cannot be called blinding or hardening: because blinding and hardening, since it is a punishment of sin, cannot be the first sin; nor are the just blinded or hardened, but sinners. Romans 1: as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense. Likewise: because they changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator… therefore God delivered them up to shameful affections. And 2 Thessalonians 2: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved… God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying.
In the second place it is to be observed that for blinding and hardening it does not suffice that one see not, or yield not; but it is required that he cannot morally see, nor yield. For that the very name of blinding and hardening shows: since they are not called blind who can see, though they see not; and those things are called hard which neither yield if they be pressed, nor can yield, and are broken rather than yield. Hence in John 12 we read: Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: Blind the heart of this people, and make its ears heavy. And Ecclesiastes 7: Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom God hath despised. From which we understand that God is not said to blind or harden when he helps a man with his aid, so that he truly can, if he will — though he permit him to fall, and so far desert him in that he furnishes not the help by which he would infallibly will. Otherwise all who sin would be blinded and hardened, since no one sins save with God permitting and in some manner deserting; but it is agreed that not all who sin can properly be called blinded or hardened. That permission and desertion alone, then, is called blinding and hardening on the side of God, by which it comes to pass that a man, by the just judgment of God punishing past sins, is so left destitute of the divine help that he cannot morally not fall — which that similitude of Chrysostom, of the general deserting his soldiers in battle, beautifully shows. Whereby also is solved what Calvin is wont to object, when he argues that the blinding and hardening cannot be referred to mere permission or desertion, since God acts the judge in this matter, and it belongs to a judge not only to permit or desert, but also in fact to punish. For that permission and desertion is a most grave punishing, since the man, in punishment of past sin, is by the divine judgment left naked and unarmed in the midst of his enemies.
Third, it is to be observed that this impotence, by which the blinded or hardened man cannot see what is to be seen, nor do what is to be done, is not absolute, but on a supposition. For although a man, while he is blind and hardened, cannot discern and believe, yet absolutely he can, because he can with the grace of God remove the blindness and the hardening, which removed, he will be able to discern and believe. For God never so abandons but that he at least helps toward obtaining the grace and strength by which the hardening can be taken away, when the man is bound to be converted to faith or justice, and sins unless he do it. Hence he who cannot do what he ought, by his own fault cannot; and therefore he sins, because, if he asked help, he would assuredly obtain it. And hence it is that in Exodus 8 and elsewhere in the Scriptures the hardened are reprehended and punished: because by their own fault they incur the hardening, and persevere in it. St. John, who in chapter 12 had said of certain men, Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said: Blind the heart of this people, the same in chapter 15 says of the same: they have no excuse for their sin. And St. Augustine, tractate 53 on John, treating that, Therefore they could not believe, admonishes that no one dare, on account of such impotence, deny free choice or excuse sin; and he insinuates the reason: that, though the blind cannot see, yet they can from blind become seeing. But someone will meet us and object that the judgment of God, by which in punishment of past sin he hardens and blinds some, will be uncertain, if it is in their power not to be blinded or hardened, or straightway to repel the blindness and hardening. I answer: the certainty of the divine judgment depends on this, that him who deserves to be blinded and hardened God not only deserts, and by his desertion suffers to be conquered by his enemies and drawn and led into various sins, but also does not give the grace congruous to his disposition for obtaining strength — which is another, more hidden species of desertion; that is, he does not stir and call him in the way he foresees to be apt for him, that he follow the one stirring and calling; and although he denies not the help by which he could absolutely ask help, yet he most certainly sees that he will not use that help. And thus he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, as is said in Romans 9.
Fourth, it is to be observed that this desertion, according to the manner of speaking of Scripture, is rightly signified by words expressing action, although in very truth it is not an action, but the omission of an action. For in book 2 of Kings, chapter 12, David is said to have slain Urias the Hethite, though David neither slew him by himself, nor properly commanded him to be slain, but only commanded the general Joab to set him in the place where the battle was strongest, and there to desert him, that he might be overcome and die. So then God is rightly said to hand over to a reprobate sense, to lead into temptation, to send the operation of error, to harden, and to blind, though he does all these things only by permitting and deserting. Nor yet does it hence follow that God is the cause of sin, or sins, by deserting men in temptations — though David sinned, and was the cause of sin, by commanding Urias to be deserted in the battle. For Urias was innocent, nor could he justly be slain by David or by Joab; and therefore David sinned when he commanded him to be abandoned in the battle, that he might die. But if Urias had deserved death, David could assuredly have taken him out of the way by that means; and although even then he would truly be called the cause of Urias's death, yet he would neither himself sin, nor be the cause of the sin of the Ammonites, by whose sword he perished. For David did not command the Ammonites to slay Urias; but since they of their own accord were carried away to the slaughter of the sons of Israel, David willed to use their onset for the death of Urias, whom he commanded to be left behind — not for the death of the others, whom he withdrew from the battle. So too God, when by just judgment, by deserting, he hands some over to a reprobate sense, blinds, hardens, leads into temptation, neither himself sins, because he justly deserts, nor is the cause of the sin; because he does not himself stir up Satan to tempt, and the man to consent (unless, as we said above, to stir up be not to hinder), but uses the wickedness of both for punishing him who is worthy of such punishment. Further, Calvin, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 4, §4 [al. 3], admits that God often hardens only by deserting; yet he adds that there are other testimonies which go further: “Such as are those about the hardening of Pharao. Did he harden by not softening? That indeed is true; but he did something more: that he handed over his breast to Satan to be confirmed in obstinacy.” Thus he. But this which he says about Satan confirming the heart of Pharao at God's command is not gathered from the divine writings, nor does he himself bring forward any place whence it might be proved — though it could most easily be expounded as we expounded above that: The Lord commanded Semei to curse David.
Fifth, it is to be observed that the action of blinding and hardening is at times attributed in the Scriptures even to those things which are occasions rather than causes of such actions. For so gifts are said to blind the eyes of the wise, Exodus 23 and Ecclesiasticus 20; so creatures are said to be made a snare for the feet of the unwise, Wisdom 14; so wine and women make wise men fall away, Ecclesiasticus 19; so the patience of God in some manner hardens, Romans 2. But when, on the occasion of such things, men are blinded or hardened, God is not said to blind or harden them, save perchance by accident; but the men themselves, abusing good things, blind or harden themselves. For God, when in the Scriptures he is said to blind or harden, does it as a just judge, and therefore intends not the conversion and penitence, but the punishment and ruin, of those who are blinded or hardened; but when he patiently waits, or overlooks sins, he intends not punishment and ruin, but conversion and penitence — for he overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance, as is said, Wisdom 11; and the Apostle says: Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God, Romans 2. Wherefore the patience of God leads to penance; and therefore they who are blinded thereby are not blinded by God, but their own malice blinds them, as is said, Wisdom 2. And truly, if for God to blind were nothing else than patiently to wait, God would have to be prayed — as St. Augustine rightly gathers, book 5 against Julian, chapter 3 — to blind us. Therefore the places adduced at the beginning of the chapter, which signify that men are hardened or blinded by God, cannot fitly be explained of a blinding and hardening through patience, but through desertion, as we said above — as will be clear if we run through some of them.
The first testimony had been taken from chapters 7, 8, and 9 of Exodus, where the hardening of Pharao is treated. Now we see that in those places the efficient cause of the hardening is sometimes attributed to Pharao himself, who from the patience of God took occasion of contemning God himself and confirming his heart in the purpose of not obeying; sometimes to God himself, who did not so illuminate, nor so move by grace, his heart, as he saw was congruous for him, that he might attend and be bent. And Pharao seeing (says Moses, Exodus 8) that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded. Behold how Pharao abuses the patience of God unto hardening. And again, chapter 9: And Pharao seeing that the rain, and the hail, and the thunders were ceased, increased his sin: And his heart was hardened, and the heart of his servants, and it was made exceeding hard — because, namely, the scourges of God were ceasing, Pharao judged there was now no danger, and that the hail and thunders had happened by chance, and therefore confirmed his purpose of not obeying. But because this — that the same Pharao did not consider that the ceasing of the scourges came from the prayers of Moses — was born of the just judgment of God, by which he had decreed not to have mercy on Pharao, nor to illuminate and move him as he saw was congruous and apt to his disposition, therefore in those same places it is often repeated: The Lord hardened Pharao's heart. In the same way are to be explained the like places adduced from Deuteronomy, Josue, the books of Kings, from Isaias, and from the Apostle. But that of Job — He changes the lip of the truthful, and takes away the doctrine of the elders, and changes the heart of princes, and deceives — has no difficulty. For God does not change the lip of the truthful by lying, but either by permitting them to be deceived, as we said in the chapter above, or by rendering the most prudent counselors mute and tongueless. Nor again does God change the heart of princes by making it evil from good, or by inspiring some false knowledge into them, but by sending in some good thought, or at least an indifferent one, from which nevertheless they are hindered from their purpose, and thus deceived — since by God's providence it comes to pass that they attain not what they desired. We have an example in Absalom, who, when he had driven his father from the royal city, and desired utterly to destroy him, that he alone might freely possess the whole kingdom, God's providence acting, called a council; and having heard and approved the counsel of Achitophel — which indeed was most useful for fulfilling his desire — he willed, God inspiring, to hear also the counsel of Chusai, which in appearance was useful, in very truth pernicious; and God brought it about that Absalom attended to the counsel of Chusai, and weighed his reasons, forgetful of the counsel of Achitophel, and thus changed his heart, and made him, the counsel of Achitophel being rejected, choose the counsel of Chusai — whereby he was hindered from that which he most desired. See book 2 of Kings, chapter 17. Like is what befell St. Athanasius. For when in a little boat he was fleeing his persecutors, God inspiring, he turned the boat about, and went on to meet his adversaries, who were pursuing him along the same river; and the divine providence brought it about that they, not recognizing him, asked of him himself how far off Athanasius was; and he answering that he was not far off, they hastened downstream at speed. And thus, without any lie, most justly deceived by Athanasius — or rather by God — they groped, as Job says, as at midday, and wandered like drunken men, departing the further from Athanasius the nearer they thought they were coming to him. See the history of Theodoret, book 3, chapter 8 [al. 5], or of Rufinus, book 1, chapter 34 [al. 18]. That of Jeremias 20 — Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I am deceived — is rightly expounded by St. Jerome as having befallen by ambiguity, not by falsity. For Jeremias had heard: Behold, I have given thee a prophet among the nations; and again: Behold, I have set thee over the nations and kingdoms. And so he had gladly taken up the office of prophesying, as one who would prophesy against the nations by which the people of the Lord was vexed; yet he observed afterward that he was perpetually prophesying, at the Lord's command, against his own nation and his own kings — whence he suffered many and various calamities. There comes to this, that when he foretold that the city of Jerusalem was to be taken by the Chaldeans, he spoke as if it were straightway to be fulfilled; whence, when it did not so happen, he was thought to have lied, and was mocked by the people as an impostor. Thus, then, by the ambiguity of the Lord's words, partly as to the nations, partly as to the time, he says he was deceived, since he saw the words of the Lord fulfilled otherwise than he had before believed. Finally, that of John 12 — Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: He hath blinded their eyes, etc. — can be understood in two ways. For either the cause why the Jews could not believe was that Isaias foretold it would be so; or that they were blinded, according to the prophecy of Isaias. If the first be said, then the matter is clear: for the foreknowledge and foretelling of things future does not impose necessity on things; and they are only said not to have been able to believe, whom Isaias foretold would not believe, because it could not be but that what the Prophet by the Spirit of God had foretold would come to pass should come to pass — though it was to come to pass freely; nay, it could not but come to pass freely, since it was sin — and hence freely done — which the Prophet had foretold would come to pass. If the second be granted — which is also the more probable — then the blindness will indeed be the cause why the Jews could not believe; but it will be a cause (as we said above) on a supposition, not absolutely: because, though while they were blinded they could not believe, yet they could be changed with the grace of God, and from blind become seeing, and believe. Like is that of John 5: How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek? For the Lord did not mean to say that they absolutely could not believe — for to what purpose, through that whole chapter and the following, would he exhort to believe those whom he knew could not believe? But he was admonishing that the desire of human glory was an impediment to them, hindering them from being able to believe; and that therefore they should contemn human glory, and seek the glory which is from God alone, if they desired to believe and to be saved.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Solvuntur objectiones ex aliis Scripturae testi¬ moniis petita’. Quartum caput continet ea loca, in quibus Deus dicitur exceecarc, vel indurare corda hominum : ut non velint, nec possint bene agere, Exodi vii. viii. et ix ; Induravit Domi¬ nus cor Pharaonis. Dent, n : Induraverat Do¬ minus spiritum Sehon. Josue xi : Domini sen¬ tentia fuerat, ut indurarentur. I. Reg. ll : Non audierunt vocem Patris sui, quia voluit Domi¬ nus occidere eos, 111. Reg. xii ; Non acquievit Ilex populo , quoniam aversatus eum fuerat Dominus. Job xii : Qui commutat labium vera¬ cium, et doctrinam senum aufert, qui immutat cor principum, et decipit eos, ut frustra ince¬ dant per invium, palpabunt quasi in tenebris, et non in luce, et errare eos faciet quasi ebrios. Isahe ix : Dominus miscuit in medio ejus spi¬ ritum vertiginis. Et cap. lxiii : Quare errare nos fecisti de viis tuis, indurasti cor nostrum ne timeremus te? Hierem. xx ; Seduxisti me Domine, et seductus sum. Joan. xii : Propterva non poterant credere, quia iterum dixit Isaias : Excsccavit oculos eorum, et induravit cor eo¬ rum , etc. Rom. i : Tradidit eos Deus in repro¬ bum sensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt. Et Rom. ix : Cujus vult miseretur , et quem vult indurat (i). Respondeo, ex communi sanctorum Patrum sententia, Deum non esse causam excffica- tionis et indurationis positive (ut sic loquar) sed negative; videlicet, permittendo, dese¬ rendo, non miserendo. Quod justum esse ne¬ gari non potest, cum Deus non deserat, nisi desertus, et justum sit, ut qui deserunt, de¬ serantur, ut S. Augustinus docet libro de natura et gratia, cap. 26. trat. 2. in Joan- nem. Et quamvis Petrus Martyria commen¬ tario primi capitis ad Romanos fateatur , omnes Patres ita exponere (ut diximus), non gravabor tamen aliqua testimonia S. Augu¬ stini in medium adducere. Igiturin epist. 103. (3) Psal. XLIII, 19. - (4) Exocl. IX, 12; Deut. Job. XH, 20; Isai. XIX, 14; ibid. LXIII, 17, Hier. CAPUT XIV. 281 ad Sixtum, sic ait : « Non obdurat Deus im- partiendo malitiam, sed non impartiendo misericordiam. » Itemlib. i. ad Simplicianum quaist. 2. circa medium : « Obdurare, in¬ quit, Deum est nolle misereri, nec ab illo ir¬ rogatur aliquid, quo sit homo deterior, sed tantum quo sit melior, non erogatur. » Et lib. v. in Julianum, cap. 3. « Cum ergo, in¬ quit, dicitur homo tradi desideriis suis, inde fit reus, quia desertus a Deo cedit eis, atque consentit, vincitur, capitur, trahitur, possi¬ detur. )> Denique in Joannem tract. 33 : « Sic, inquit, excaecatDeus, sic obdurat, deserendo, non adjuvando, quod occulto judicio facere potest, iniquo non potest. » Similia habet S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 3. in epist. ad Romanos, ubi ponit exemplum ducis milites suos in acie deseren¬ tis. Similia etiam S. Gregorius lib. xxv. Mo¬ ralium, cap. 12. et 13. et Damascenus lib. iv. de fide, cap. 20. Isidorus lib. ii. de summo bono, cap. 19. Sed quia non quadibet per¬ missio, vel desertio dici potest excaecatio, vel induratio, res tota paulo diligentius expli¬ canda est. Primo igitur observandum est, caecitatem mentis, ut etiam cordis obdurationem esse peccatum, causam peccati, et effectum, seu poenam peccati. Sic enim scribit S. Augusti¬ nus lib. v. contra Julianum, cap. 3 : « Cavi- tas, inquit, mentis, quam solus illuminator Deus removere potest, et est peccatum, quo in Deum non creditur, et est pcena peccati, qua cor superbum digna animadversione pu¬ nitur, et est causa peccati, cum aliquid mali cavi cordis errore committitur. » Quod idem de obduratione cordis intelligitur, nam eo loco promiscue loquitur S. Augustinus de cavitate et obduratione. Et in Scripturis de utraque homines reprehenduntur, tamquam de vero, maximoque peccato. Matth. xm ; Incrassatum est cor populi hujus, et auribus graviter audierunt, et oculos suos clauserunt , ne quando videant oculis, et auribus audiant, et corde intelligant, et convertantur , et sanem eos (1). Itaque caecitas cordis, de qua loquimur, non est simplex carentia luminis, sed affectus pravus, quo quis illustrationes divinas re¬ pellit, vel impedimentum ponit, quo minus a Deo illuminetur. Quare dicuntur ejusmodi homines, Matth. xm, videntes videre, et non videre, quia vident quidem unde illuminari possent, sed ex malitia sua nolunt advertere, atque ita excavat eos malitia ipsorum. Pari ratione cordis obduratio est pravus affectus, quo quis admonitiones divinas, sive internas, sive externas contemnit, et semper magis ac magis eis resistit, donec ad eum statum de¬ veniat, ut eas ne sentiat quidem. Hinc enim cor dicitur durum, lapideum, grave, crassum, quando non movetur ad correptiones et in¬ crepationes divinas, quia quae sunt ejusmodi nec cedunt, nec sentiunt. Sicut e contrario cor dicitur tenerum, molle, et carneum, quando facile acquiescit Deo, vel homini ad¬ monenti, quia caro mollis, ac tenera facile penetratur, et exiguas etiam punctiones per¬ cipit : « Cor durum (inquit S. Bernardus lib. i. de consideratione) nec seipsum exhor¬ rescit, quia seipsum non sentit ; non movetur precibus, minis non cedit, flagellis magis du¬ ratur. » Hinc habemus permissionem illam, qua Deus sivit primum hominem labi, et qua nunc etiam sinit justos peccare, non posse dici ex¬ cavationem, vel indurationem, quia excava¬ tio et induratio cum sit poena peccati non potest esse primum peccatum, neque excae- cantur vel indurantur justi, sed peccatores. Rom. i: Sicut non probaverunt, Deum habere in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sen¬ sum. Item : Quia commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, et coluerunt, ac servierunt crealurse potius quam creatori : propterea tra¬ didit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae. Et II. ad Thes. II : Eo (quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt, ut salvi fierent , ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant menda¬ cio (2). Secundo loco observandum est, ad exca;- cationem, et obdurationem non sufficere, ut quis non videat, vel non cedat, sed requiri ut non possit moraliter videre, nec cedere. Id enim ostendit nomen excavationis et ob¬ durationis. Caici siquidem non dicuntur qui videre possunt, licet non videant ; et res durm illas dicuntur, quas nec cedunt, si compri¬ mantur, nec cedere queunt, et potius fran¬ guntur, quam cedant. Hinc Joan. xir legi¬ mus / Ideo non poterant credere, quia iterum dixit Isaias, Excseca cor populi hujus, et aures ejus aggrava. Et Eccl. vil : Considera opera Dei, quod nemo possit corrigere, quem Deus despexerit (3). Ex quo intelligimus, non dici Deum excavare, vel indurare, quando juvat (1) Matth. XIII, 15. —(2) Rom. I, 28; II Thess. II, tO. — (3)Joan. XII, 39; Eccl. VII, 13. l'OM. V. ' * ♦ 19 LIBER If. 28 2 hominem auxilio suo, ita ut ille vere possit, si velit, licet permittat eum labi, et eatenus deserat, quia non praebet auxilium, quo ille infallibiliter velit. Alioqui omnes qui peccant essent excaecati, et obdurati, cum nemo pec¬ cet nisi permittente, atque aliquo modo de¬ serente Deo : constat autem non omnes qui peccant excaecatos, vel obduratos proprie dici posse. Illa igitur sola permissio, atque desertio, excajcatio et obduratio dicitur ex parte Dei, qua fit ut homo justo Dei judicio, peccata praeterita punientis, ita destituatur auxilio di¬ vino, ut non possit moraliter non cadere, quod pulchre ostendit similitudo illa Chry- sostomi de duce milites in prajlio deserente. Ex quo etiam solvitur quod objicere solet Calvinus, cum argumentatur, excaecationem, et obdurationem non posse referri ad solam permissionem, vel desertionem, cum Deus judicem agat in hac re, et judicis sit non solum permittere, vel deserere, sed etiam re ipsa punire. Nam ista permissio, ac deser¬ tio gravissima est punitio, cum homo in poenam peccati praeteriti in medio hostium nudus, atque inermis divino judicio relinqua¬ tur. Tertio observandum est, hanc impote.itiam qua homo excaecatus, vel obduratus, non po¬ test videre quod videndum est, nec agere quod agendum est, non esse absolutam, sed ex hypothesi. Nam licet homo, dum est caecus, et obduratus, non possit cernere, et credere, tamen absolute potest, quia potest cum Dei gratia removere caecitatem, et ob¬ durationem, quibus remotis cernere poterit, et credere. Numquam enim Deus ita desti¬ tuit, quin saltem juvet ad impetrandam gra¬ tiam, et vires, quibus obduratio tolli possit, quando tenetur homo converti ad fidem, vel justitiam, et nisi faciat peccet. Proinde qui non potest facere quod debet, sua culpa non potest, et ideo peccat, quia si peteret auxi¬ lium, utique impetraret. Et hinc est quod Exod. vm. et alibi in Scri- turis obdurati reprehenduntur, et puniuntur ; quia culpa sua indurationem incurrunt, et in ea perseverant. Sanctus Joannes qui cap. xii. dixerat de quibusdam : Propterea non poterant credere quia dixit Isaias : Excxca cor populi hujus. Idem cap. xv. dicit de iisdem : Excusationem non habent de peccato suo (1). Et sanctus Augustinus tract. 53. in Joannem, tractans illud : Propterea non poterant credere, monet, ut nemo audeat propter ejusmodi im¬ potentiam negare liberum arbitrium, aut ex¬ cusare peccatum, et rationem insinuat, quia licet caeci non possint videre, tamen pos¬ sunt ex caecis fieri videntes. Sed occurret aliquis, atque objiciet incer¬ tum fore judicium Dei, quo in poena peccati praeteriti aliquos obdurat et excaecat, si in illorum potestate est non excaecari, vel obdu¬ rari, aut continuo caecitatem, obdurationem¬ que repellere. Respondeo, certitudinem divi¬ ni judicii ex eo pendere, quod eum, qui ex¬ caecari, atque obdurari meretur, Deus non solum deserit, ac desertione sua vinci sinit ab hostibus, et in peccata varia trahi, atque perduci, sed etiam non dat gratiam congru¬ entem ejus ingenio ad impetrandas vires, quae est alia occultior desertionis species, id est, non eum excitat, et vocat, quomodo praevidet illi aptum esse, ut sequatur exci¬ tantem, et vocantem, et quamvis non dene - get auxilium, quo ille absolute possit auxi¬ lium petere : tamen certissime videt eum auxilio illo non usurum. Atque ita cujus vult miseretur, et quem vult obdurat ; ut dicitur Rom. ix. Quarto observandum est, hanc desertionem secundum morem loquendi Scripturae recte significari per vocabula actionem exprimen¬ tia, quamvis revera non sit actio, sed actio¬ nis omissio. Nam in ii. lib. regum cap. xii. dicitur David occidisse Uriam Heteum, cum tamen David eum per se non occiderit, nec jusserit proprie occidi, sed tantum imperavit duci Joab, ut eum constitueret in loco, ubi fortissimum esset praelium, ibique eum dese¬ reret, ut vinceretur, et moreretur. Sic igitur Deus recte dicitur tradere in reprobum sen¬ sum, inducere in tentationem, mittere ope¬ rationem erroris, obdurare, etexcaecare, lice haec omnia non faciat nisi permittendo et de¬ serendo, Neque tamen hinc sequitur, Deum esse causam peccati, aut peccare deserendo ho¬ mines in tentationibus, licet David peccave¬ rit, et causa fuerit peccati jubendo Uriam deseri in praelio. Nam Urias innocens erat, nec poterat juste a Davide, vel Joabo inter¬ fici, et ideo peccavit David, cum jussit eum in praelio derelinqui, ut moreretur. At si Urias necem promeruisset, potuisset utique David eum illa ratione de medio tollere ; et quamvis (1) Joan. XV, 22. CAPUT XIV. 283 tunc etiam vere diceretur causa mortis Uriae, tamen neque ipse peccaret, neque esset causa peccati Ammonitarum, quorum gladio ille periit. Neque enim David jussit Ammonitis ut Uriam occiderent, sed cum illi sponte sua raperentur ad caedem filiorum Israel, uti vo¬ luit David eorum impetu ad necem Uriae, quem relinqui jussit, non ad necem aliorum quos a praelio subduxit. Ita quoque et Deus cum aliquos justo judi¬ cio deserendo tradit in reprobum sensum, excaecat, obdurat, in tentationem inducit, neque ipse peccat, quia juste deserit, neque est causa peccati ; quia non excitat ipse sata- nam ad tentandum, et hominem ad consen¬ tiendum (nisi ut supra diximus, excitare sit non impedire) sed utitur utriusque nequitia ad eum puniendum, qui tali poena dignus est. Porro Calvinuslib. n. Institut.cap. 4.§. 4. ad¬ mittit Deum saepe obdurare solum deserendo : tamen addit esse alia testimonia, quae ultra procedant : « Qualia sunt, inquit, de Pha- raonis induratione. An induravit non emol¬ liendo? id quidem verum est; sed plus ali¬ quid fecit, quod obstinatione pectus ejus ob- firmandum Satanae mandavit.» Haec ille. Sed hoc quod ipse dicit de Satana jussu Dei ob- firmante cor Pharaonis, ex divinis litteris non colligitur : neque ipse locum ullum profert, unde id probetur. Quamvis exponi facillime posset, ut supra exposuimus illud : Dominus praecepit Semei maledicere Davidi. ' Quinto est observandum, actionem excae- candi, et obdurandi interdum tribui in Scripturis etiam illis rebus, quae suiit occa¬ siones potius* qjiam causae ejusmodi actio¬ num. Sic enim dicuntur munera excaecare oculos sapientum, Exod. xxm. etEccles. xx. Sic creaturae dicuntur factae in muscipulam pedibus insipientium, Sap. xiv. Sic vinum et mulieres apostatare faciunt sapientes, Ec- cles. xix. Sic patientia Dei aliquo modo indu¬ rat, Rom. ii. Caeterum cum occasione talium rerum homines excaecantur, vel indurantur, non dicitur Deus eos excaecare, vel indurare, nisi forte per accidens, sed ipsi homines abutentes rebus bonis, seipsos excaecant, vel obdurant. Deus enim, cum in Scripturis di¬ citur excaecare, vel indurare, id facit ut ju¬ stus judex, et ideo non conversionem, et poenitentiam, sed poenam et ruinam eorum intendit, qui excaecantur, vel obdurantur. At cum patienter expectat, vel peccata dissi¬ mulat, non poenam et ruinam, sed conver¬ sionem et poenitentiam intendit: Dissimulat enim peccata hominum propter poenitentiam, ut dicitur Sapient, xi (1), et Apostolus ait : Ignoras quia patientia Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit ? tu autem secundum duritiam tuam, et impoenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae, et justi judicii Dei. Rom. ii (2). Quare patientia Dei ad poenitentiam addu¬ cit, et ideo qui inde excaecantur, non excae¬ cantur a Deo, sed excaecat eos malitia ipso¬ rum, ut dicitur Sapient, v. Et vere si Deum excaecare nihil esset aliud, nisi patienter ex- pectare, orandus esset Deus, ut S. Augusti¬ nus recte colligit lib. v. in Julianum, cap. 3. ut nos excaecaret. Igitur loca initio capitis adducta, quae significant a Deo homines in¬ durari, vel excaecari non possunt commode explicari de excaecatione, et obduratione per patientiam, sed per desertionem, ut supra diximus, et ut perspicuum erit, si eorum ali¬ qua percurramus. Primum testimonium sumptus fuerat ex cap. vii. viii. et ix. Exodi, ubi agitur de in¬ duratione Pharaonis. Videmus autem in iis locis aliquando tribui causam efficientem indurationis ipsi Pharaoni, qui ex patientia Dei sumebat occasionem contemnendi ipsum Deum, et obfirmdndi cor suum in proposito non obediendi ; aliquando tribui ipsi Deo , qui non ita illustrabat, neque movebat per gratiam cor illius, ut videbat congruum illi esse, ut attenderet , et flecteretur. Videns Pharao, inquit Moses Exod. viii, quod data esset requies, ingravavit cor suum, et non au¬ divit eos, sicut praecepterot Dominus (3). Ecce quomodo abutitur Pharao Dei patientia ad indurationem. Et rursus cap. ix : Videns Pharao, quod cessasset pluvia, et grando, et tonitrua, auxit peccatum, et ingravatum est cor ejus, et servorum illius, et induratum nimis (4), quia videlicet flagella Dei cessabant, existi¬ mabat Pharao nihil jam esse periculi, et grandinem, ac tonitrua casu accidisse, ideo confirmabat propositum non parendi. Sed quia quod non cogitaret idem Pharao, fla¬ gellorum cessationem provenire ex precibus Mosis, nascebatur ex justo Dei judicio, quo decreverat, non misereri Pharaonis, neque eum illustrare et movere, ut videbat ejus in¬ genio congruum, aptumque esse propterea in iisdem locis saepe repetitur : Induravit Dominus cor Pharaonis. (1) Sap. XI, 24. — (2) Rom. 11, 4. — (3) Exod. VIII, 15. — (1) Ibid. IX, 34. 28i LIBER II. Eodem modo explicanda sunt loca similia adducta ex Deuteronomio, Josue, libris Re¬ gum, ex Isaia, et ex Apostolo. Illud autem Job : Qui commutat labium veracium , et do¬ ctrinam senum aufert , et qui immutat cor principum et decipit (1), non habet difficulta¬ tem. Non enim Deus immutat labium vera¬ cium mentiendo, sed vel permittendo, ut de¬ cipiantur, ut diximus capite superiore, vel reddendo mutos, et elingues prudentissimos consiliarios. Neque etiam Deus immutat cor principum, faciendo ex bono malum, vel ali¬ quam falsam notitiam eis inspirando, sed immittendo bonam aliquam cogitationem, aut certe indifferentem, ex qua tamen impe¬ diantur a proposito suo, atque ita decipian¬ tur, cum Dei providentia fiat, ut non asse¬ quantur quod cupiebant. Exemplum habemus in Absalone, qui cum patrem suum ex urbe regia expulisset, et cum omnino perdere desideraret, ut ipse unus regno universo libere potiretur, Dei providentia agente, consilium convocavit, et audito consilio Achitophel, ac probato, quod quidem ad implendum ejus desiderium uti¬ lissimum erat ; Deo inspirante, audire voluit etiam consilium Chusai, quod in speciem erat utile, re autem vera perniciosum : effe¬ cit vero Deus, ut Absalon attenderet ad con¬ silium Chusai, et rationes ejus ponderaret, oblitus consilii Achitophel, atque ita immu¬ tavit cor ejus, ac fecit, ut reprobato consilio Achitophel eligeret consilium Chusai, ex quo impeditus est ab eo, quod maxime cu¬ piebat. Yide lib. II Reg. cap. xvii. Simile est quod accidit S. Athanasio. Nam cum in navicula fugeret persecutores suos, Deo inspirante convertit naviculam, et ob¬ viam ire perrexit adversariis, qui per idem flumen eum insequebantur. Egit vero divina providentia, ut illi eum non agnoscentes, ab 1110 ipso peterent, quantum inde Athanasius abesset, quo respondente non longe abesse, 1111 citato cursu descendere festinarunt. At¬ que ita sine ullo mendacio ab Athanasio, vel a Deo potius justissime decepti palpabant, ut inquit Job, quasi in meridie, et errabant velut ebrii, cum eo magis ab Athanasio re¬ cederent, quo se ad eum propius accedere cogitabant. Yide Theodoreti historiam lib. iii. cap. 8. vel Ruffini lib. i. cap. 34. Illud Hieremiae xx : Sediuisti me Domine , et seductus sum (2), recte exponitur a S. Hie¬ ronymo, quod ambiguitate , non falsitato contigerit. Audiverat enim Ilieremias : Ecce Prophetam in gentibus dedi te. Et rursus : Ecce constitui te super gentes, et regna. Ita¬ que libenter munus prophetandi assumpse¬ rat tamquam contra gentes, a quibus popu¬ lus Domini vexabatur prophetaturus : ad¬ vertit tamen postea, se perpetuo contra gen¬ tem suam, et reges suos Domino jubente prophetare, ex quo multas, et varias cala¬ mitates patiebatur. Accedit, quod cura prae¬ diceret, capiendam urbem Hierosolymam a Chaldaeis, ita loquebatur, ac si statim id es¬ set implendum, unde cum non ita accideret putabatur mentitus, et a populo, tamquam impostor deludebatur. Ita igitur ambiguitate verborum Domini, partim quoad gentes, partim quoad tempus deceptum se dicit, cum aliter videret impleri sermones Domini, quam ante crediderat. Denique illud Joann. xn : Propterea non poterant credere , quia iterum dixit Isaias, Excsecavit oculos eorum, etc. duobus modis intelligi potest. Aut enim causa, cur Judaei credere non possent, erat, quia id praedixit Isaias ita futurum ; aut quia excaecati erant juxta vaticinium Isaiae. Si dicatur primum, tunc res est perspicua. Non enim praescien¬ tia, et praedictio futurorum imponit rebus necessitatem, et ideo solum dicuntur non potuisse credere, quos Isaias praedixit non credituros, quia non poterat fieri, quin eve¬ niret quod Propheta spiritu Dei eventurum praedixerat, quamquam libere eventurum esset. Imo non poterat fieri, ut non libere eveniret, cum peccatum essef, ac proinde libere factum, id quod eventurum Propheta praedixerat. Si datur secundum, quod etiam est probabilius, tunc caecitas erit quidem causa, cur nonjiossent Judaei credere, sed causa erit (ut supra diximus) ex hypothesi non absolute, quia licet dum excaecati erant, credere non possent, poterant tamen mutari cum Dei graitia, et ex caecis fieri videntes, et credere. Simile est illud Joann. v : Quomodo vos potestis credere , qui gloriam ab invitem accipitis , et gloriam , quae a solo Deo est, non quaeritis (3) ? Neque enim Dominus dice¬ re volebat, cos absolute non posse cre¬ dere, quorsum enim toto illo capite, et se¬ quenti eos hortaretur ad credendum, quos sciret non posse credere? Sed monebat, de- (1) Job XII. 20. - (2) Hier. XX, 7. - (3) Joan V. 45. i CAPUT XV. siderium humanae gloriae impedimentum illis esse, quominus credere possent; et ideo gloriam humanam contemnerent, et gloriam, quae a solo Deo est, quaererent, si credere, et salvi esse cuperent.