Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book IV: Grace and Free Choice in Natural and Civil Works
Chapter 8: The same is proved from the tradition of the ancient Fathers
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).
What we have proved from the Scriptures — that man, even after the fall, is of free choice in civil and external actions — we now set about proving from the tradition and testimonies of the ancient Fathers. And first we shall note the testimonies of those Fathers who held for heretics those who denied free choice; then we shall bring forward their several opinions.
There were, then, very many who, because they denied free choice, were numbered among the heretics by the ancient Fathers. For in the first times of the Church, Clement, in book 3 of the Recognitions, noted Simon Magus for heresy, because he affirmed that man lacks free choice. Then, among the heresies of Bardesanes, who lived about the year of the Lord 170, St. Augustine places this very one about free choice, in the book On Heresies, chapter 35. Among the errors of the Manichaeans, whose author Manes was a hundred years later than Bardesanes, St. Jerome, in the preface of the dialogues against the Pelagians, numbers this: that free choice of the will was taken away by them. The same heresy was also that of Priscillian, who lived about the year of the Lord 390 — which St. Augustine reports in the book On Heresies, chapter 70, and St. Leo condemns in epistle 91 [al. 15] to Turibius, and the first Council of Braga, canon 10.
This error of the old heretics Peter Abelard afterwards renewed, and was for that reason condemned both by Pope Innocent II and by the Council of Sens, as can be learned from epistle 194 [al. 191] of St. Bernard, and from book 3 of the life of the same Bernard, chapter 5. The same error John Wyclif afterwards renewed, as Thomas Waldensis witnesses, tome 1, book 1, article 1, chapter 28; and the Council of Constance, session 8, again condemned the same error. Since, therefore, this error has so often been noted by the Fathers, and condemned by Pontiffs and Councils, certainly the innovators of this time ought not to wonder if we have numbered them among the heretics; and their opinions Leo X and the following Pontiffs, as also the Ecumenical Council of Trent, with many other Synods of diverse provinces, have condemned.
But, say they, the old heretics — Simon Magus, Bardesanes, Manichaeus, Priscillian — did not simply deny free choice, but either introduced two coeternal principles, one good, the other evil; or bound men to fate and the stars: whence it followed that the sins of men were attributed either to that evil principle, or to the stars, but not to men themselves. But what is this to the cause? For the ancient Fathers not only reprehend in those old heretics the cause by which they were driven to deny free choice, but also in express words note this: that they denied free choice. Nay more, one of the arguments they used to refute the two principles, or two natures, and those fates of the stars, was that it followed that men lack free choice — which was always a most certain dogma in the Church. Certainly St. Jerome, in the preface of the dialogues against the Pelagians, when he speaks thus — “It belongs to the Manichaeans to condemn the nature of men, and to take away free choice” — in express words distinguished and condemned two errors of the Manichaeans; of which the second, whatever be said of the first, Calvin and Bucer and their Sectaries cannot deny to pertain to themselves. But let us come to the opinions of the Fathers themselves, to be briefly recited.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Probatur idem ex traditione veterum Patrum. Quod ex Scripturis probavimus, hominem etiam post lapsum liberi esse arbitrii in ac¬ tionibus civilibus , et externis, idem nunc probare aggredimur ex traditione, et testi¬ moniis veterum Patrum. Ac primum notabi¬ mus testimonia eorum Patrum, qui pro hae¬ reticis habuerunt eos, qui liberum negabant arbitrium. Deinde, singulas eorum sententias adferemus. Fuerunt igitur permulti, propterea quod liberum negarent, inter haereticos ab anti¬ quis Patribus numerati. Primis enim Eccle¬ siae temporibus Clemens lib. m. Recognitio¬ num, notavit Simonem Magum hsereseos, quod affirmaret hominem carere libero ar¬ bitrio. Deinde, inter haereses Bardesanis, qui vixit circa annum Domini 170. ponit hanc ipsam de libero arbitrio S. Augustinus lib. de haeres, cap. 35. Inter errores Manichaeo¬ rum, quorum auctor Manes centum annis Bardesane posterior fuit, numerat S. Hiero¬ nymus in praefatione dialogorum adversus Pelagianos, quod tolleretur ab eis liberum voluntatis arbitrium. Eadem hseresis fuit etiam Priscilliani, qui vixit circa annum Do- min 390. quam refert S. Augustinus in lib. de haeres, cap. 70. damnat autem S. Leo in epist. 91. ad Turbium, et Concillium Braca- rense primum, can. 10. Hunc veterum haereticorum errorem reno¬ vavit postmodum Petrus Abailardus, qui propterea tum ab Innocentio Papa Ii. tum a Concilio Senonensi damnatus fuit, ut cogno¬ sci potest ex epist. S. Bernardi 194, et ex lib. iii. vitae ejusdem Bernardi cap. 5. Eumdem postea renovavit Joan. Wiclefus, teste Tho- ma Waldensi tom. 1 lib. 1. art. 1 cap. 28. et iterum erroremeumdem damnavit Concilium Constantiense sess. 8. Cum igitur toties hic error a Patribus notatus, a Pontificibus et Conciliis damnatus fuerit ; certe mirari non debent hujus temporis novatores, si eos inter haereticos numeravimus, Eorumque senten¬ tias Leo X. et consequentes Pontifices, nec- non Tridentinum Concilium QEcumenicum cum aliis multis diversarum provinciarum Synodis damnaverunt. CAPUT IX. 19 At, inquiunt, veteres haeretici, Simon Ma¬ gus, Bardesanes, Manicliaeus Priscillianus, non simpliciter negabant liberum arbitrium, sed vel inducebant duo principia coaeterna, unum bonum, alterum malum ; vel fato, et stellis homines alligabant : unde sequebatur, ut peccata hominum, vel principio illi malo, vel stellis, npn autem ipsis hominibus tribue¬ rentur. Sed quid hoc ad causam? veteres enim Patres, non solum reprehendunt in antiquis illis haereticis causam, unde impellebantur ad negandum liberum arbitrium, sed etiam disertis verbis id notant, quod negarent libe¬ rum arbitrium. Quin etiam unum ex argumentis, quibus utebantur ad refellenda duo principia, sive duas naturas, ‘et fata illa stellarum, erat, quia sequebatur homines carere libero arbitrio, quod semper fuit in Ecclesia dogma certissi¬ mum. Certe S. Hieronymus in preefat. dialo- gor. adver. Pelagianos, dum ita loquitur : (i Manichaeorum est, hominum damnare na¬ turam, et Uberum auferre arbitrium. » Disertis verbis duos Manichaeorum distinxit, atque damnavit errores ; quorum alterum ad se pertinere, quicquid de altero sit, Calvi¬ nus et Bucerus, eorumque Sectarii, negare non possunt. Sed veniamus ad ipsas Patrum sententias breviter recitandas.