Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book V: Grace and Free Choice in Moral Works
Chapter 20: The third class of Scriptures for free choice in moral matters
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book V. 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 third class embraces those testimonies which teach that it has stood by man that he did not act well and avoid sins. Numbers 14: The Amalecite and the Chanaanite are before you, and by their sword you shall fall, because you would not consent to the Lord. Deuteronomy 30: This commandment, that I command thee this day, is not above thee. Isaias 5: What is there that I ought to do more to my vineyard, that I have not done? Jeremias 7: This is a nation which hath not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, nor received instruction; therefore it is cast off by the Lord. And chapter 32: Because you have hardened your heart, and would not obey the Lord, all these evils are come upon you. Matthew 23: How often would I have gathered together thy children, and thou wouldest not. Acts 7: You uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost. From these places this argument is drawn: “Either he who sins can not sin, or he cannot. If he can, then he has free choice. If he cannot, then God complains of man in vain, as though it had stood by him that he did not act well, when he could not have done otherwise.”
To this argument Calvin answers. And first he says that God does not undeservedly complain of men, although they cannot but act ill, since by their own vice and hereditary malice they are infirm. Second, he adds that sinners are reprehended by God, that through weariness of their sins they may return to the way. Third, to the place alleged from chapter 30 of Deuteronomy, by which he felt himself the more pressed, he answers in two ways: first, that that place can be eluded, if one affirm that Moses speaks of the easiness of knowing, not of observing, the precepts; then he answers seriously that Moses in that place is to be understood of the promise of the Gospel, not of the precepts and the law of nature.
Let us now consider of what weight these responses of Calvin are. The first, about hereditary malice, helps him little. For that malice we teach to be a punishment, not a fault, unless we obey it with free will; but Calvin, who contends that it is a fault, ought to have proved this, not assumed it. And so, as no one would rightly impute it as a vice to a man blind from birth, if in walking he stumbled — even though that blindness descend from original sin, and he stumble by his own vice, that is, by a vice inhering in him — so also sinners would not rightly be reprehended when they transgress the divine precepts, if without free consent, from the mere corruption of nature which from the sin of the first man inheres in us, they violated the precepts of the Lord.
The second response which Calvin renders — when he says that sinners are reprehended by God, that through weariness of their sins they may return to the way — in no way solves the proposed argument. For if sinful men can, having heard the chiding, be affected with weariness of their sins and return to the way, they demonstrate that they have free choice; if they cannot, to what end those divine complaints? To what end (I say) does God so speak, as though it stood by men that they did not act well? “That unwilling and reluctant,” says Calvin, “they may understand it to be necessary sacrilege, if they charge upon God the fault of their own evils, which resides in themselves.” And he proves it from chapter 7 of Jeremias, where God commands all the crimes of the people to be recounted, and yet foretells that the people will not hear: Thou shalt speak to them all these words, and they will not hearken to thee. But Calvin ought to have proved that true fault resides in those who sin from necessity — or at least that they are deservedly reprehended who cannot act well. And Jeremias does not say “they will not be able to hear,” but “they will not hear.” And so, since they could hear, but would not, therefore by the Lord’s command their crimes are recalled to their memory, that they may have no excuse.
The third response, which properly pertains to the place of Deuteronomy, is no better than the rest. For what Calvin says — that that place can be eluded by explaining “it is not above thee” of the easiness of knowing, not of observing — needs no response, since he himself, in book 4 against Pighius, writes that that solution is a piece of quibbling. And he writes this deservedly; since, although Moses speaks of the easiness of knowing, as we showed above, yet from the easiness of knowing he wishes it to be gathered that it was in the power of the people to keep the commandments, or not keep them. For he had said a little before: The Lord will return, to rejoice over thee in all good things — if, however, thou hear the voice of the Lord thy God, and keep his precepts. And lest the people should answer that they could not fulfill the precepts, or did not know what the Lord willed, Moses adjoins: The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, that thou mayst fear him, etc. — where the help of grace is promised against the excuse of impotence; and afterwards he adds: “This commandment is not above thee, nor situated in heaven, that thou mayst say, who shall ascend into heaven,&rdquoo; etc. — where the excuse of ignorance is taken away.
This solution, then, being left aside — which (as we said) Calvin himself confesses to be quibbling — the serious response is this: that Moses speaks not of the observance of the law, but of the promise of the Gospel. Which he proves: both because blessed Paul, Romans 10, refers this whole place of Deuteronomy to Christ; and also because Moses, if he had spoken of the observance of the precepts of the law, would have hurled the people into manifest destruction; for he would have brought it about that they should think they could fulfill the whole law by their own powers alone. But this response does violence to the clearest words of divine Scripture. For how could Moses more openly signify that he speaks of the law and of the precepts to be kept, than by those words: This commandment, that I command thee this day? and by these: If thou hear the voice of the Lord, and keep his precepts and ceremonies, which are written in this law? How can these things be denied without the utmost impudence? Convicted, then, by so clear a truth, Calvin, in book 4 against Pighius, adds that if Moses speaks of the precepts, yet he speaks of them as they lead by the hand to Christ, so that the chief sense pertains to Christ. But this does not solve the argument. For whether this place pertain to Christ in the literal sense, or in the mystical, or pertain in no way, we labor not much; it is enough for us if that be conceded which can in no way be denied: that Moses speaks also of the precepts to be kept, and teaches that it is in the power of men to keep them and not keep them — from which free choice is demonstrated without any doubt. Nor does the testimony of the Apostle, Romans 10, stand in the way; for one ought not to expound a clear Scripture through an obscure one; and it is certain, by the consent of all interpreters, that the place of Moses is much clearer than that of Paul. Then (as we taught above) the Apostle does not explain the words of Moses, but only alludes to them on account of a certain similitude of the law and of faith. Nor does Moses, by preaching free choice, hurl the people into destruction; for he does not say that the commandments can be fulfilled by the powers of free choice alone, but adjoins grace also, when he says: The Lord will circumcise thy heart, that thou mayst fear the Lord. Finally, Moses teaches absolutely that the commandments of the law can be fulfilled, and that this lies in the free choice of the will — since he who gave the precept without doubt does not deny the help.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Tertia classis Scripturarum pro libero arbitrio in moralibus Tertia classis testimonia illa complectitur, quse docent per hominem stetisse, quo minus bene ageret, et peccata vitaret. Numer. xiv. Amalec , et Chananseus ante vos sunt , quorum gladio corruetis, eo quod nolueritis acquiescere Domino. Deuter. xxx. Mandatum, quod ego praecipio tibi hodie, non supra te est. Isaise v. Quid potui vineae meae facere, et non feci ? Ilieremise vix. Haec gens non audivit vocem Domini Dei sui, nec recepit • disciplinam , ideo projecta est a Domino. Et cap. xxxil. Quia indurastis cor vestrum et noluistis obedire Domino, haec omnia mala evenerunt vobis. Matth xxiii. Quoties volui congregare filios tuos, et noluisti. Act. vn. Incircumcisi cor¬ dibus et auribus, vos semper Spiritui sancto resistitis (1). Ex his locis ducitur hoc argu¬ mentum. « Yel potest is qui peccat, non peccare, vel non potest : si potest, habet igi¬ tur liberum arbitrium : si non potest, igitur Deus frustra queritur de homine, quasi per illum steterit, quo minus bene ageret, cum ipse aliter facere non potuerit». Ad hoc argumentum Calvinus respondet, ac primum dicit, Deum non immeiulo de ho¬ minibus conqueri, quamvis non possint non male agere, quoniam vitio suo, et hseredita- ria malitia infirmi sunt. Secundo addit, pec¬ catores a Deo reprehendi, ut peccatorum ta?dio in viam redeant. Tertio, ad locum al¬ legatum ex cap. xxx. Deuter. quo se magis urgeri sentiebat, duobus modis respondet, primo, locum illum posse eludi, si quis af¬ firmet, Mosem loqui de facilitate cognitionis, non observationis praeceptorum. Deinde, respondet serio, Mosem eo loco intelligen- dum esse de promissione Evangelii, non de praeceptis, et lege naturae. Consideremus nunc quanti ponderis sint istae Calvini responsiones. Prima illa de ma¬ litia haereditaria parum eum juvat. Nam ma¬ litiam illam, nos poenam docemus esse, non culpam, nisi libera voluntate ei obediamus : Calvinus autem, qui culpam esse contendit, id probare, non assumere debuisset. Itaque sicut homini caeco a nativitate non recte quis vitio verteret, si inter ambulandum impin¬ geret, etiamsi caecitas illa ex peccato origi¬ nali descendat, et ille vitio suo, id est, vitio, quod in ipso haeret impingat : sic etiam non recte peccatores reprehenderentur, cum prae¬ cepta divina transgrediuntur, si absque libe¬ ra consensione, ex sola naturae corruptione, quae ex peccato primi hominis in nobis hae¬ ret, praecepta Domini violarent. Altera responsio, quam reddit Calvinus, cum dicit, peccatores a Deo reprehendi, ut peccatorum taedio in viam redeant, non sol¬ vit ullo modo propositum argumentum. Nam si possunt homines peccatores audita objur¬ gatione, taedio peccatorum affici, et in viam redire, liberum arbitrium se habere demon¬ strant, si non possunt, quorsum illae divinae querimoniae ? quorsum (inquam) ita loqui¬ tur Deus, quasi per homines staret, quo mi¬ nus bene agerent ? « Ut nolentes, inquit Calvinus, ac inviti intelligant, necessarium sacrilegium esse, si malorum suorum cul¬ pam, quae in ipsis residet, in Deum rescri¬ bant ». Et probat ex cap. vii. Hierem. ubi jubet Deus narrari omnia scelera populi, et tamen praedicit eum non auditurum : « Lo¬ queris (inquit) ad eos omnia verba haec, et non audient te.» At probare Calvinus debuis¬ set, veram culpam residere in iis, qui ex ne¬ cessitate peccant, vel certe eos merito re¬ prehendi, qui non possunt bene agere. Hie- remias autem non dicit, non poterunt audi¬ re, sed, non audient. Itaque quoniam audi¬ re poterant, sed nolebant, ideo jussu Domi- ' ni revocantur illis in memoriam scelera ip¬ sorum, ut excusationem nullam habeant. Tertia responsio, quae ad locum Deutero¬ nomii proprie pertinet, non est melior esete- ris. Quod enim Calvinus dicit, locum illum (1)Num. X1Y, 25; Deut . XXX, H; Isai. V, 4; Hier. VII, 28; ib. XXXII, 23; Matth. XXIII, 37; Act.Vjl, 51 . 80 LIBER V. J udi posse, explicando illud « non supra te est » de facilitate cognitionis, non observa¬ tionis, non eget responsione, cum ipse idem in lib. iv. adversus Pighium scribat, eam so¬ lutionem esse cavillatoriam. Et merito hoc scribit, quoniam licet Moses loquatur de fa¬ cilitate cognitionis, ut supra nos ostendimus, tamen ex facilitate cognitionis, colligi vult, in potestate populi fuisse mandata servare, vel non servare. ^Dixerat enim paulo ante : Revertetur Dprhinus , ut gaudeat super te in omnibus bonis , si tamen audieris vocem Domi¬ ni tui, et custodieris praecepta ejus. Ac ne po¬ pulus responderet, se non posse implere praecepto aut non scire quid Dominus velit, adjungit Moses : Circumcidet Dominus cor tuum , ut timeas eum etc. Ubi promittitur au¬ xilium gratia) contra excusationem impoten¬ tia), et postea addit : « Mandatum hoc non supra te est, neque in ccelo situm, ut possis dicere, quis ascendet in coelum etc. » Ubi tollitur excusatio ignorantia). Hac igitur solutione omissa, quam (ut di¬ ximus) Calvinus etiam cavillatoriam esse confitetur : seria responsio illa est, quod Mo¬ ses non loquatur de observatione legis, sed de promissione Evangelii. Id quod probat ; tum, quia B. Paulus ad Rom. x. totum hunc locum Deuteronomii refert ad Christum ; tum etiam, quia Moses si de pra)ceptorum legis observatione locutus fuisset, in manifestum exitium populum pra)cipitasset. Effecisset enim ut existimaret, se legem universam suis solis viribus posse complere. At haec responsio vim adfert clarissimis verbis divinae Scripturae.. Quomodo enim po¬ terat Moses magis aperte significare, se lo¬ qui de lege, et praeceptis servandis, quam illis verbis : Mandatum hoc , quod ego praeci¬ pio tibi hodie ? Et illis : Si audieris vocem Domini , et custodieris praecepta ejus , et caere¬ monias, quae in lege hac scripta sunt ? Quo¬ modo possunt sine summa impudentia haec negari ? Convictus igitur tam perspicua veritate Calvinus in lib. iv. adversus Pighium, addit, si Moses de praeceptis loquatur, loqui tamen de eis, ut ad Christum manu ducunt, ut pc- tissima sententia ad Christum pertineat. Sed hoc non solvit argumentum. Nam si¬ ve hic locus ad Christum pertineat in sensu litterali, sive mystico, sive non pertineat ullo modo, non multum laboramus ; id n obis es satis, si concedatur, quod nulla ratione ne¬ gari potest, loqui Mosem etiam de praeceptis servandis, et docere, esse in potestate homi¬ num illa servare, et non servare, ex quo li¬ berum sine ulla dubitatione demonstratur arbitrium. Neque obstat testimonium Apo¬ stoli ad Rom. x. non enim oportet exponere Scripturam claram per obscuram : certum autem est omnium interpretum consensione locum Mosis, multo clariorem esse, quam Pauli. Deinde (ut nos supra docuimus) Apostolus non explicat verba Mosis, sed ad ea tantum alludit propter similitudinem quamdam legis et fidei. Neque Moses pra)dicando liberum arbitrium pra)cipitat in exitium populum. Non enim dicit, solis viribus liberi arbitrii mandata posse compleri, sed adjungit etiam' gratiam, cum ait : Circumcidet Dominus cor tuum, ut timeas Dominum. Denique docet Moses absolute mandata legis posse com¬ pleri, atque id esse in libero voluntatis arbi¬ trio, quoniam qui dedit praeceptum, sine du¬ bio non denegat auxilium.