Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book II: On Predestination and Sufficient Grace
Chapter 1: The question is proposed, whether sufficient help is given to all
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, 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 questions concerning the partitions of grace being dispatched, that grave controversy must be treated concerning the communication of grace and divine predestination — namely, whether grace sufficient unto salvation is given to all men, and, if it be so, how the truth of gratuitous predestination is saved. The explication of which controversy is altogether necessary for the following disputations, on the liberty of choice and the necessity of grace. Now there are two contrary judgments on the proposed question, between which the truth walks in the middle.
The first judgment is that of the Pelagians, and of those who in Gaul secretly favored the Pelagians — Faustus, Cassian, and others. This judgment teaches that the grace of God is prepared for all men, provided they themselves will to ask and receive it; and that each one can, from the powers of free choice, without any other preventing grace, seek out, invoke, and receive grace itself. St. Augustine reports this judgment — or rather heresy — in book 1 to Boniface against the two epistles of the Pelagians, last chapter, and in epistles 106 and 107, and in the book On the Predestination of the Saints, chapters 1 and 2; the same is reported by Hilary and Prosper in their epistles to Augustine, and by Peter the Deacon in the book On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, last chapter.
The other judgment, contrary to the first, is that of all those who do not acknowledge the distinction between efficacious and sufficient help — in whose number are Luther, in the Assertion, article 36, and Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 22, §10, and chapter 21, §§13 and 16. For these teach that sufficient help unto salvation is lacking to many — to all those, namely, who are not set apart from the mass of perdition by divine predestination.
Between these contrary and warring judgments walk very many Catholic theologians — nearly all — who teach that to all men, according to place and time, sufficient help is not lacking; and yet that without preventing grace no one can desire, ask, or receive grace. See Alexander of Hales in part 3 of the Summa, question 60, member 3, article 3; Albert the Great on book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 28, article 1; St. Thomas in the 1-2, question 109, article 6, reply to the first, and in book 3 against the Gentiles, chapter 159; St. Bonaventure on book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 28, article 1, question 3; Scotus on book 1 of the Sentences, distinction 16; and among the more recent, Pope Adrian in question 3 on penitence; John of Rochester in the refutation of article 36; Francis of Ferrara in the commentary on book 3 against the Gentiles, chapter 159; John Driedo in the book On the Captivity and Redemption of the Human Race, treatise 3; Ruard Tapper in the explication of the article on free choice; Dominic Soto, book 1 On Nature and Grace, chapters 13 and 18; Andrew Vega, book 13 on the Council of Trent, chapter 13.
But since the explication of the proposed question contains many heads, and cannot be dispatched by a single answer, we shall endeavor to expedite the whole matter through several propositions.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. Proponitur quxslio, an auxilium sufficiens omnibus detur. Expeditis quaestionibus circa partitiones gratiae, tractanda est gravis illa controversia, de communicatione gratiae et praedestina¬ tione divina, videlicet an gratia sufficiens aid salutem detur omnibus hominibus, et, si itu sit, quomodo salvetur gratuite praedestina¬ tionis veritas. Cujus controversiae explicatio omnino necessaria est ad sequentes dispu¬ tationes, »lc libertate arbitrii et gratiae ne¬ cessitate. Sunt autem dua; sententiae con¬ trariae de proposita quaestione, inter quas media incedit veritas. Pi ima sententia Pelagianorum est, et eo¬ rum qui Pelagianis in Gallia occulte fave¬ bant, Fausti, Cassiani et aliorum. Docet haec sententia, gratiam Dei omnibus hominibus paratam esse, modo ipsi eam petere et exci¬ pere velint, posse autem unumquemque ex a iribus liberi arbitrii sine alia praeveniente gratia, ipsam gratiam expetere, invocare, excipere. Refert hanc sententiam sive potius hajresim S. Augustinus in lib. i. ad Bonifa- cium contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum cap. ult. et in epist. 106 et 107. ct in lib. de prse- destin. Sanctor, cap. 1. et 2. eamdem referunt Hilarius et Prosper in epistolisad Augusti¬ num, et Petrus Diaconus in libro de incarna¬ tione et gratia Christi, cap. ult. Altera sententia priori contraria est eorum Tom. V, omnium, qui non agnoscunt 'distinctionem inter auxilium efficax et sufficiens, in quo¬ rum numero sunt Lutberus in assertione art, 36. et Calvinus lib. m. Instit. c. 22. §. 10. et cap. 21. §. 13. et 16. hi enim docent multis deesse sufficiens auxilium ad salu¬ tem, omnibus iis videlicet, qui non a massa perditionis divina praedestinatione discreti. Inter has contrarias pugnantesque sen¬ tentias incedunt Theologi Catholici quam plurimi, ac fere omnes, qui docent omnibus hominibus pro loco et tempore sufficiens auxillium non deesse, et tamen sine praeve¬ niente gratia, neminem posse gratiam desi¬ derare, petere, vel accipere. Vide Alexan¬ drum Alensem in 3. par. Summae, quaest. 60 memb. 3. art. 3. Albertum Magnum in 2. sentent. dist. 28. urt. 1. S.Thomam in. 1.2. quasst. 109. art. 8. ad 1. et in lib. ni. contra Gentiles cap. 139. S. Bonaventuram in 2. sentent. dist. 28. art. 1. qua;st. 3. Scotuin in 1. sent. dist. 16. et ex recentioribus A- drianum Papam in quaest. 3. de pcenit. Jo- annem RofTensem in refutatione art. 36. Franciscum Fcrrarien. in comment. lib. ih. contra Gentiles cap. 139. Jonnnem Driedo- nem in lib. de captivitate, et redempt. gene¬ ris humani tract. 3. Ruardum Tapperum in explicatione articuli de libero arbitrio, Do¬ minicum a Soto lib. i. de natura et gratia cap. 13. et 18. Andream Vegam lib. xili. super Concilium Tridcntinum cap. 13. Quoniam autem explicatio proposita; quse- stionis multa continet capita, neque una re¬ sponsione absolvi potest, per aliquot propo¬ sitiones rem totam expedire conabimur'. 3o 338 LIBER II.