Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book I: On Grace
Chapter 5: Objections are answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book I. 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).
Against the things confirmed in the preceding chapter, two objections are wont to be made.
The first objection is taken from the words of St. Augustine, who speaks of grace in such wise that he seems to mean that it is not a habit which we use, but rather the Holy Spirit himself, who rules and moves us. For in book 3 of the Hypognosticon he compares our free choice to a beast of burden, and the grace of God to the rider by whom the beast is governed and ruled; and in epistle 106 [al. 186] he writes that in the works of grace our will is a companion, not a leader; a follower, not a forerunner. I answer: St. Augustine speaks of grace at once created and uncreated — that is, of God, who through his created gifts sits in us, and in various ways leads, rules, moderates, and governs us, not otherwise than a rider his beast; which the Apostle admonished, Romans 8, in those words: For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. But hereby the created and infused habits are not taken away, but rather asserted and confirmed: for God dwells in us through those habits — which of faith the Apostle witnesses, when he says, Ephesians 3, that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; and of charity, Romans 5, the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us; and St. John in the first epistle, chapter 4: he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him. St. Augustine himself also, in epistle 106 cited, says that grace is increased and perfected in us — which cannot be understood save of created grace: “Grace,” says he, “merits to be increased, that, increased, it may merit also to be perfected — the will accompanying, not leading; following, not going before.” And although we use the habits which are in us when we will, yet we need besides the divine cooperation, direction, protection, and often also a new inspiration and new impulse; and therefore St. Augustine rightly says that in the works of grace our will is a companion rather than a leader, and a follower more than a forerunner.
The second objection is taken from the words of the same Augustine, who seems to say that it was the opinion of the Pelagians that habitual grace is necessary, through which men are raised to the state of sons of God. For in book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 18, he speaks thus: “But they (the Pelagians, namely) raise a point, and seem to bring something worthy of consideration and examination, who say that little ones newly brought forth from their mothers' wombs receive Baptism not for the remitting of sin, but that, not having a spiritual procreation, they may be created in Christ, and become partakers of the kingdom of heaven, and in that way sons and heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.” Which opinion of the Pelagians the same Augustine reports, book 2 against the two epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 6 [al. 5], book 4, chapter 2, and in the book On Heresies, chapter 88; and he refutes that opinion in book 6 [al. 5] against Julian, chapter 4 [al. 11], where he says there is no cause why infants should be excluded from the kingdom of God, if they have no sin, though they be not regenerated in Christ. I answer: nowhere are the Pelagians reprehended by Augustine for saying that regeneration and the adoption of the sons of God is necessary for little ones for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, but for denying that it is necessary also for purging original sin. For the Pelagians did not deny some necessity of grace, both in little ones and in adults; but they did not confess the truth entirely and perfectly, as was needful. They acknowledged in little ones the grace of adoption; the grace of the remission of original sin they did not acknowledge. They confessed that for adults the grace of the remission of sins is necessary; the grace which should heal nature, and help in doing good works and avoiding sins, they by no means confessed. And that Augustine does not reprehend the Pelagians as regards the necessity of Baptism in little ones for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is evident from those words of book 6 against Julian, chapter 4: “We give thanks that you do not think this; for you do not admit the newborn to the kingdom of God unless they be washed, that is, baptized; and so you judge it much better to be washed than to be born.” And from these, in the same chapter: “Enumerate the things which the true Christian faith does not doubt — among which thou recallest things almost all of which we too proclaim.” And in book 2 against the two epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 6, addressing the Pelagians: “If you deny that little ones draw anything which may be remitted in Baptism as original sin, yet you do not deny that in that laver of regeneration they are adopted from sons of men into sons of God.” It is not, then, this adoption and exaltation of human nature through Christ that Augustine reprehends in the opinion of the Pelagians.
What then, thou wilt say, does he mean, when in book 6 against Julian, chapter 4, he thinks it absurd if little ones not baptized are excluded from the kingdom, if by the Pelagians' opinion they have no original sin? I answer: it is not judged absurd by Augustine if little ones not adopted as sons of God, though lacking all sin, are excluded from the kingdom; but if they are not adopted, seeing they have by no fault of their own deserved to be excluded from the adoption, and thereby from the kingdom — especially since very many others, without any merits of their own, acquire the grace of adoption and participation in the heavenly kingdom. For now, when it is asked why God, among little ones, brings some through Baptism to the kingdom of heaven, and permits others to die without Baptism and be excluded from the kingdom, we are wont to answer: that in the former he may show his mercy, in the latter his justice. But if there were no sins, it will assuredly be a wonder if God will not have in his kingdom certain innocent infants, created to his own image, and, that he may not have them there, suffers them to perish without Baptism — while he adopts as sons, through Baptism, other infants, likewise innocent, and brings them into his kingdom, not without the grief of the others who are excluded. That this is blessed Augustine's judgment is evident from his words; for thus he speaks, book 6 against Julian, chapter 4, answering the words of Julian, who had said that God bestowed the grace of regeneration on infants deserving nothing of good or evil: “What? — when have they offended, whom, equally innocent, clean, created by himself to his own image, he estranges, innumerable, from this gift (of regeneration, namely), nor prevents their will with the largess of this ineffable benefit, separating so many of his own images from his kingdom? If this shall not be an evil to them, then they will not love the kingdom of God — so many innocent images of God; but if they will love it, and will love it as much as innocents ought to love the kingdom of him by whom they are created to his image, shall they suffer nothing of evil from this very separation? Lastly, wherever they be, however they be, under God as judge, who is neither pressed by fate nor corrupted by the accepting of persons, they will not be in the felicity of that kingdom where they shall be who equally have deserved nothing of good or evil; but if they had deserved nothing of evil, they would never, in a common cause, be deprived of the communion of so great a good.”
Some other objections would remain to be solved; but they pertain properly to that question, whether we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or through a righteousness inhering in us; and to that, whether for the merit of eternal life it is required that the work proceed from the habit of the grace that makes pleasing, or it be enough that the work be conformed to the law of God. And so in those places we shall, God helping, dissolve the remaining objections.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Adversus ea, qme capite superiore con¬ firmata sunf, duaj objectiones fieri solent. Priina objectio sumitur ex verbis S. Augu¬ stini, qui de gratia ifa loquitur ut videatur velle eam non esse habitum, quo nos uta¬ mur, sed potius ipsum Spiritum sanctum, qui nos regat et moveat; nam in lib. iii. Hypognostici, comparat liberum arbitrium nostrum jumento, gratiam Dei sessori, a quo jumentum gubernatur et regitur; et in epist. 106. scribit in operibus grati® voluntatem nostram comitem esso, non ducem ; pedis- sequam, non prmviam. Respondeo, S. Augustinum loqui de gra¬ tia simul creata et increafa, id est, de Deo, qui per dona sua creata sedet in nobis, et variis modis nos ducit, regit, moderatur et gubernat, non secus ac sessor jumentum. Quod Apostolus ad Roman. vm. illis verbis admonuit : Qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt lilii. Dei ( 2). Hinc autem non tolluntur habi- lus creati et infusi, sed potius asseruntur et confirmantur: nam Deus per habitus illos Imbitat in nobis, quod de iide testatur Apo¬ stolus, cum ait ad Eplies. m : Christum ha¬ bitare per fidem m cordibus. Et de charitate, ad Roman. v : charitas Dei diffusa est tn cor¬ dibus nostris , per Spiritum sanctum , qui datus est nobis. Et S. Joannes in epist. 1. cap. iv: Qui manet in charitate , in Deo manet , et Deus in eo (3). Ipse etiam S. Augustinus in epist. 106. citata dicit, Gratiam in nobis augeri et perfici, id quod nisi de gratia creata intel ligi nequii : <i Gratia, inquit, meretur auge¬ ri, ut aucta mereatur et perfici; comitante, non ducente ; pedissequa. non praivia vo¬ luntate. » Et quamvis habitibus, qui sunt in nobis, utamur, cum volumus, tamen indigemus praeterea divina cooperatione , directione, protectione, sjcpe etiam nova inspiratione novoque impulsu, ct ideo recte sanctus Au¬ gustinus dicit, in operibus gratia? voluntatem (1) Joan. III, 3; Tit III. — (2) Rom, VIII 14. - (3)Eph. III, 17: Rom. V, 5: T Joan. IV, 10. 511) LIBER 1. nostram comitem potius quam ducejn, et pe- dissequam magis esse, quam praeviam. Secunda objectio sumitur ex verbis ejus¬ dem Augustini, qui dicere videtur, Pelagi- anorum sententiam fuisse, necessariam esse gratiam habitualem, per quam evehantur homines ad statum filiorum Dei: nam lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remiss. cap. 18. sic loquitur : « Sed illi (Pelagiam videlicet) movent, et aliquid consideratione ac discus¬ sione dignum videntur adferre, qui dicunt, parvulos recenti vita editos visceribus ma¬ trum, non propter remittendum peccatum percipere Baptismum , sed ut spiritualem procreationem non habentes , creentur in Christo, ipsius regni coelorum participes, fi¬ ant eo modo filii et haeredes Dei, cohaeredes autem Christi. » Quam sententiam Pelagi- anorum refert idem Augustinus lib. ii. con¬ tra duas epistolas Pelagianorum cap. 6. et lib. iv. cap. 2. et in lib. de hseresibus cap. 88. refellit autem eam sententiam lib. vi. in Julian. cap. 4. ubi dicit, nullam esse causam cur infantes excludantur a regno Dei, si nul¬ lum habent peccatum, quamvis non regene¬ rentur in Christo. Respondeo, nusquam ab Augustino repre¬ hendi Pelagianos, quod regenerationem et adoptionem filiorum Dei parvulis necessa¬ riam esse dicerent ad regnum coelorum obti¬ nendum , sed quod negarent necessariam etiam esse ad peccatum originale purgan¬ dum. Pelagiani siquidem tum in parvulis, tum in adultis gratia; necessitatem aliquam non negabant, sed non integre et perfecto, ut oportebat veritatem confitebantur, agno¬ scebant in parvulis gratiam adoptionis; gia- tiam remissionis peccati originis non agnos¬ cebant, fatebantur adultis necessariam esse gratiam remissionis peccatorum ; gratiam qua; naturam sanaret, et in bonis operibus faciendis, peccatisque vitandis juvaret, mi¬ nime fatebantur. Quod autem Augustinus non reprehendat Pelagianos , quod attinet ad necessitatem Baptismi in parvulis propter regnum coelo¬ rum, perspicuum est ex illis verbis lib. vi. contra Julian. cap. 4. « Agimus gratias , quia non hoc putatis : non enim ad regnum Dei natos, nisi perfundantur, id est, bapti¬ zentur, admittitis, atque ita perfundi multo melius judicatis, quam nasci. » Et ex illis in eodem capite: « Enumera qute fides vera non dubitet Christiana, in quibus ea comme¬ moras, quse pene omnia praedicamus et nos. » Et in lib. ii. contra duas epist. Pelagian. cap. 6 : « Si parvulos, inquit, Pelagianos al- loquens, negatis attrahere, quod in Bapti¬ smo remittatur originale peccalum, tamen in illo regenerationis lavacro adoptari ex fi¬ liis hominum in filios Dei non negatis. » Non igitur hanc adoptionem et exaltationem na¬ tura humanae per Christum Augustinus in Pelagianorum sententia reprehendit. Quid igitur, inquies, sibi vult, cum lib. vi. in Julian. cap. 4. absurdum putat, si par¬ vuli non baptizati excludantur a regno, si juxta Pelagianorum sententiam nullum ha¬ beant originale peccatum ? Respondeo, non judicari absurdum ab Augustino, si parvuli non adoptari in filios Dei, quamvis omni pec¬ cato carentes, excludantur a regno ; sed si non adoptentur, cum nulla sua culpa meru¬ erint excludi ab adoptione, et per hoc a reg¬ no ; prasertim cum alii permulti sine ullis suis meritis gratiam adoptionis et participa¬ tionem regni coelestis acquirant. Nunc enim cum quaeritur, cur ex parvulis alios Deus per Baptismum ad regnum coelorum adducat, alios sine Baptismo mori, et a regno excludi permittat; respondere solemus, ut in illis mi¬ sericordiam, in istis justitiam suam demon stret. At si nulla sint peccata, mirum pro¬ fecto erit, si Deus infantes aliquos innocentes atque ad imaginem suam creatos, nolit in regno suo, atque ut eos ibi non habeat, sine Baptismo interire sinat, cum alios item in¬ fantes, et similiter innocentes per Baptismum adoptet in filios, et in regnum suum perducat non sine dolore aliorum, qui excluduntur. Hanc esse B. Augustini sententiam, per¬ spicuum est ex verbis ejus; sic enim loquitur lib. vi. in Julianum cap. 4. respondens ad verba Juliani, qui dixerat, Deum infantibus nihil boni, vel mali merentibus regeneratio¬ nis gratiam tribuisse : « Quid, inquit, cum offenderunt, quos pariter innocentes, mun¬ dos, a se ad imaginem suam creatos innu¬ merabiles ab isto munere (regenerationis vi¬ delicet) alienat, nec eorum voluntatem hujus ineffabilis pravenit beneficii largitate, sepa¬ rans tot imagines suas a regno suo : si hoc eis non erit malum, non ergo amabunt reg¬ num Dei, tot innocentes imagines Dei : si autem amabunt, et tantum amabunt, quan¬ tum innocentes amare debent regnum ejus, a quo ad ipsius imaginem creantur, nihil no mali de hac. ipsa separatione patientur ? Po¬ stremo ubilibet sint, quomodolibet sint, sub Deo judice, qui nec fato premitur, nec per- CAPUT VI. 511 sonarum acceptione corrumpitur, in illius regni felicitate non erunt, ubi erunt qui pa¬ riter nihil boni, malive meruerunt, sed si ni¬ hil meruissent mali , nunquam privarentur in communi causa communione tanti boni. » Ali® nonnullae objectiones solvendae es¬ sent; sed ese proprie pertinent ad quaestionem illam, utrum justificemur per imputationem justitiae Christi, an per justitiam nobis inh®- rentem ; et ad illam, utrum ad meritum vitae aeternae requiratur, ut opus procedat ex ha¬ bitu gratiae gratum facientis, an satis sit, ut opus sit conforme legi Dei. Itaque in iis locis, objectiones caeteras, Deo juvante, diluemus. CAPUT VI. Gratiam gratum facientem re non distingui