Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book IV: Grace and Free Choice in Natural and Civil Works
Chapter 6: That the manner of speaking of the adversaries, who changed the name of free choice into the name of servile choice, cannot be defended from signal rashness
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book IV. 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).
That the true and Catholic opinion, then, may be confirmed, three things are to be proved in order. First, that the adversaries cannot by any color be defended from signal rashness, in that they so greatly execrate the name of free choice, and have attempted to change it into the name of servile choice. Second, that from the doctrine of faith it is manifestly deduced that man, even after the fall, is endowed with free choice, at least in civil and external actions. Third, that this same thing is certain and evident in true philosophy and in the natural light of reason.
As to the first: we can prove by three arguments that the adversaries, not without the greatest rashness, have wished to abolish the name of free choice, or to change it into the name of servile choice. For first, the Apostle Paul seriously admonishes us, in the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 6, to flee novelties of words. But the name of servile choice was never heard in the Catholic Church through all the fifteen hundred years — although from the very beginning of the nascent faith, and thereafter in various ages, there were never wanting heretics who either exalted free choice too much, or, contrariwise, depressed it too much.
Then, absolutely all the Ecclesiastical writers who in every age fought for the Catholic faith taught free choice in express words. Nor will there be need of great labor to gather the testimonies of the Fathers; for they are ready to hand, and the adversaries do not deny it. For these are the words of Calvin, whom we have as the chief adversary in this arena, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 2, § 4: “Among the Latins the name of free choice has always existed; and the Greeks were not ashamed to usurp a more arrogant word, for they said autexousion” — that is, a power of one’s own. How great a rashness is it, then, now at last to wish to abolish a word which you yourself confess to have been always in use among all writers, both Latin and Greek?
Finally, this name is either good or bad; true or false; useful or hurtful. If good, true, useful — then certainly it is also to be retained. If bad, false, hurtful, and (as Luther speaks) brought into the Church with Satan for its teacher — since it is agreed well enough that it began from the beginning of the Church, and has been propagated even to us — it follows that the Church has always been very infirm, seeing that neither at the beginning could she prevent this pernicious word from being brought in by Satan, nor afterwards, through all the fifteen hundred years, was she able to explode or abolish it. And where is that saying: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it? and, The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth?
Calvin will answer that the name of free choice is ambiguous: and if indeed the choice be called free from coercion, the name is good and true; if from necessity, pernicious and false. And since at this time it is taken by most for free from necessity, therefore it seems deservedly to be exploded, lest by its ambiguity it harm the faithful. But it is false that this name is ambiguous. For (as we showed in the preceding book) free choice can in no way be understood if it be not free from necessity; and not at this time only, but in all ages, this word has been taken for a faculty of the soul undetermined and free toward either part, and thereby free from necessity — which we have confirmed by testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers, and by various reasons.
But, say they, this word was taken from the philosophers, and is nowhere read in the divine writings. From whom, then, was it to be taken? From cobblers and masons? And if the divine Scripture receives words from the poets — as those of Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades, which are read in Job, chapters 37 [al. 9] and 38, and in Amos, chapter 5 — what wonder is it if the Church receive some words from the philosophers? And although in the divine writings these two words are not joined together as to sound — “free choice” — yet the one is found with a periphrasis of the other, as Numbers 30: It shall be in the choice of the man, whether he do it or do it not. For what is “in his choice, to do or not do,” but in a choice free toward either? So also that Greek word autexousion, which Calvin so greatly execrates, is not found perhaps in the Scriptures; yet one part of it is found with a periphrasis of the other part, as 1 Corinthians 7: “having power of his own will.” For what is power of one’s own will, but autexousion?
Add, last, that it is not to be wondered at if these words are used more frequently by the Fathers than by the holy Scriptures, or even if by the Fathers only; since the heresies which assail free choice arose after the Scriptures were composed, and it is they that compelled men to make these words frequent, or to devise them — even as the adversaries themselves confess to have been done in other like cases, as of the “Trinity,” the homoousion, the Theotokos.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. 'Non posse ab insigni temeritate defendi modum loquendi adversariorum , qui nomen liberi arbitrii , in nomen servi arbitrii mutaverunt. Ut igitur vera et Catholica sententia con¬ firmetur, tria sunt ordine probanda. Primo, non posse adversarios ullo colore defendi ab LIBER IV. 1 fi insigni temeritate, quod nomen liberi arbi¬ trii tantopere detestentur, et in nomen servi arbitrii commutare tentaverint. Secundo, ex doctrina fidei manifeste deduci, hominem, etiam post lapsum, libero arbitrio praeditum esse, saltem in actionibus civilibus, et exter¬ nis. Tertio, idipsum certum et evidens esse in vera philosophia et naturali lumine ra¬ tionis. Quod attinet ad primum,- tribus argumen¬ tis probare possumus, adversarios non sine maxima temeritate nomen liberi arbitrii abo¬ lere, vel in nomen servi arbitrii commutare voluisse. Primum enim, serio nos admonet Apostolus Paulus in priore epist. ad Timoth. cap. 6. ut fugiamus vocum novitates. At no¬ men servi arbitrii in Ecclesia Catholica, per totos mille quingentos annos numquam fuit auditum, cum tame.i ab ipso principio na¬ scentis fidei, ac deinceps variis aetatibus num¬ quam defuerint haeretici, qui liberum arbi¬ trium, vel nimium extulerint, vel etiam con¬ tra nimium depresserint. Deinde, omnes omnino scriptores Ecclesi¬ astici, qui singulis aetatibus fidem Catholicam propugnaverunt, disertis verbis liberum ar¬ bitrium docuerunt. Neque opus erit magno labore testimonia Patrum conquirere. Nam et obvia sunt, et adversarii id non negant. Haec enim sunt verba Calvini, quem in hac palaestra praecipuum adversarium habemus lib. 2. Institutionum, cap. 2. § i. « Semper apud Latinos liberi arbitrii nomen extitit ; Graecos vero non puduit arrogantius usurpare vocabulum, siquidem doxcijouotov dixerunt. » Quanta igitur temeritas est, nunc demum abolere velle vocabulum, quod ipse fateris apud omnes scriptores, tum Latinos, tum Graecos semper in usu fuisse ? Denique vel hoc nomen est bonum vel ma¬ lum ; verum aut falsum ; utile vel noxium. Si bonum, verum, utile ; certe etiam reti¬ nendum : si malum, falsum, noxium et (ut Lutherus loquitur) a Satana magistro in Ec¬ clesiam invectum; cum satis constet ab initio Ecclesiae ccepisse, et ad nos usque propaga¬ tum, sequitur Ecclesiam fuisse semper valde infirmam, quippe quae neque initio prohibere potuerit, quo minus perniciosum hoc voca¬ bulum a Satana inveheretur, neque postea per totos mille quingentos annos illud explo¬ dere, aut abolere valuerit. Et ubi est illud : Portx inferi non prwvalebunt adversus eam ? et, Ecclesia est columna et firmamentum veri¬ tatis. Respondebit Calvinus, nomen liberi arbi¬ trii esse ambiguum : et siquidem liberum di¬ catur arbitrium a coactione, nomen esse bo¬ num et verum ; si a necessitate, perniciosum et falsum. Et quoniam hoc tempore a ple- risque accipitur pro libero a necessitate, ideo merito explodendum videri, ne propter am¬ biguitatem suam fidelibus noceat. At falsum est, nomen hoc esse ambiguum. Nam (ut in libro superiore ostendimus) nullo modo po¬ test intelligi liberum arbitrium, si non sit li¬ berum a necessitate, et non hoc tempore so¬ lum, sed omnibus saeculis acceptum est hoc vocabulum pro facultate animi indetermi¬ nata, et libera ad utramque partem, ac per hoc libera a necessitate. Id quod testimoniis Scripturae et Patrum, et rationibus variis confirmavimus. At, inquiunt, hoc vocabulum sumptum est a philosophis, et in divinis litteris nusquam legitur. A quibus igitur sumendum erat ? a sutoribus ne et cementariis ? et si Scriptura divina voces a poetis accipit, ut Arcturi, Ori¬ onis, Pleiadum, quae leguntur in Job cap. xxxvii. et xxxviii. et in Amos cap. 5. quid mirum est, si Ecclesia voces aliquas accipiat a philosophis ? et quamvis in divinis literis non sint hae duae voces simul junctae quoad sonum, liberum arbitrium, tamen invenitur altera cum alterius periphrasi, ut Numeri xxx. In arbitrio viri erit, ut faciat vel non fa¬ ciat (1). Quid enim est, in arbitrio, ut faciat, vel non faciat nisi in arbitrio libero ad utrumli¬ bet? sic etiam vox illa Graeca, avts^ouaiov, quam Calvinus tantopere detestatur, non in¬ venitur fortasse in Scripturis, tamen in¬ venitur pars una cum alterius partis peri¬ phrasi, Ut I. Cor. VII. lUoUffl' av E/Et 7TEpt TOutSfou SeX^jascto;, id est, potestatem habens propriae voluntatis. Quid enim est potestas propriae voluntatis, nisi auTa;c.u<jtov, Adde ultimo, non esse mirandum, si hae vocds crebnius a Patribus, quam a Scripturis sanctis, vel etiamsi solum a Patribus usur¬ pantur, quoniam haereses, quae liberum ar¬ bitrium oppugnant, post conditas Scripturas sunt exortae, et ipsae sunt, quae has voces fre¬ quentare vel excogitare coegerunt, quemad¬ modum in aliis similibus, ut Trinitatis <5goou- <j(ou 0eotoxou factum esse, ipsi etiam adver¬ sarii confitentur, (1) Num. XXX. 14, CAPUT YH. 17