Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book V: Grace and Free Choice in Moral Works
Chapter 29: The arguments of the adversaries drawn from the word of God are solved
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).
Further, against the things we have said and taught, the adversaries bring forward two kinds of arguments: one drawn from the Word of God, the other from the books of St. Augustine.
The first testimony Luther objected, from chapter 41 of Isaias: Do ye also good or evil, if you can. I answer: the argument is inept enough, and gross, as the rest of Luther’s are wont to be. For the prophet speaks not of men, but of the idols of the gentiles. For as holy David mocked the images of the gentiles, saying, They have eyes, and shall not see; they have ears, and shall not hear, etc., Psalm 113 — so Isaias upbraids them with their feebleness: that, though they are held for gods by foolish men, yet they can profit or hurt no one.
The second testimony they take from those words of Ezechiel, chapter 36: I will give you a new heart, and I will cause you to walk in my commandments. They who have not a new heart cannot walk in the precepts of the Lord; they who have a new heart cannot not walk in the same precepts, since otherwise that promise would be false, “I will cause you to walk in my commandments”; therefore none have at once the power of walking in the precepts and of not walking; and thereby none have free choice in moral matters. I answer: he who has not a new heart cannot observe all the precepts of the Lord as is fitting, while he is such — that is, while he bears the old heart; yet absolutely he can, if he will, observe all the commandments of the Lord as is fitting, because he can put off the old heart and put on the new, if he will acquiesce in the calling of the Lord, and turn himself to God with his whole heart. For it is written: Make to yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit, Ezechiel 18. By like reasoning, he who has a new heart cannot, while he is such, not walk in the precepts of the Lord; yet absolutely he can, because he can put off the new heart, if he will turn himself away from God, according to that of the same Prophet in the same chapter 18: If the just man turn himself away from his justice, etc. Absolutely, then, man can through free choice do well if he will, and not do so if he will not.
The third testimony, from that of Psalm 118: Incline my heart into thy testimonies. And 3 Kings 8: May the Lord incline our hearts to himself, that we may keep his commandments. I answer: these testimonies prove that without the grace of God all the commandments cannot be kept by us — which (as we have often said) we most willingly confess; but they do not prove that man is not of free choice. For God does not incline our hearts by compelling, or by bringing necessity, but by persuading and inviting through internal inspiration — so that it is left in the power of the will to consent to him who calls and persuades, or not to consent. But someone will say: What else does God do when he inclines us, than work that we consent? It is so: God brings it about, through the help of his grace, that we consent to him who calls; but he does this by helping our infirmity, not by taking away our liberty. Of which matter we shall say more in the following book.
The fourth testimony, from that of John 8, Romans 6, and 2 Peter 2: Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. But servitude and liberty are opposed. I answer: servitude and liberty, taken generally, are without doubt opposed; but not any servitude whatever is opposed to any liberty whatever. Otherwise the Apostle would not say, in Romans, chapter 6, that they who are the servants of sin are free from justice, and contrariwise, that they who have been freed from sin are the servants of justice. And so the servitude of sin is opposed to liberty from sin, not to the liberty of nature, which is properly called free choice. For he who is the servant of sin cannot by his own powers shake off the yoke of sin, and arrive at the liberty of justice; yet he can, through free choice, God helping, be freed from sin; and he can, if he will, of himself remain in the servitude of sin. Just as also, contrariwise, the servitude of nature — that is, the natural determination to one, such as is in cattle — is opposed to the liberty of nature, that is, to the free choice of the will, yet not to liberty from sin. Nay, the things that lack the liberty of nature, by this very fact that they lack it, cannot in any way serve sin.
The fifth testimony, from that of John 15: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. The branch, say they, cut off from the vine cannot but wither; but grafted in the vine, and living from it, it cannot but bear fruit; therefore neither do men, who are compared to branches, have at any time a liberty toward opposites. I answer: man is most rightly compared to a branch, because without the sap of the heavenly vine, which is Christ, he cannot produce works salvation-bearing and heavenly; yet, since the same man is a rational branch, he can through free choice, when he is in the vine, of his own accord withdraw from it and wither; and, cut off from the vine, he can, through the same free choice, the supreme husbandman helping, be grafted again into the vine and bear fruit. And so these similitudes prove the necessity of grace, but do not exclude the liberty of choice.
The sixth testimony, from that of the first to the Corinthians, chapter 4: For what hast thou that thou hast not received? But if we have nothing proper and our own, certainly we are not the Lords of our actions, nor are they in our power. I answer: the same Apostle, in chapter 3 of the same epistle, confesses that we have something proper and our own, when he says, Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour — where what the Latin interpreter rendered “his own,” in the Greek fountain is idion, that is, proper. We have, then, free choice by the gift of God; but, this gift being received, we are lords of our actions; and because we can at our choice do or omit them, they are said to be proper and ours. And although the holy works of which blessed Paul speaks in that place are also, by a peculiar reason, gifts of God, insofar as they are not done without grace, yet they are also our own proper works, insofar as we could through free choice have not done them; and therefore (as we have already said), the same Apostle witnessing, a proper reward is owed them, and they are not undeservedly named our own proper labors.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIX. Solvuntur argumenta adversariorum ex verbo Deipetita. Porro adversus ea, quae diximus, et docui¬ mus, duo proferunt adversarii genera argu¬ mentorum. Unum ductum a Verbo Dei, alte¬ rum ex libris sancti Augustini. Primum testimonium objecit Lutherus ex cap. 41. Isai : Bene agite , aut male si pote¬ stis (1). Respondeo : argumentum est satis ine¬ ptum, ac pingue, ut caetera Lutheri esse so¬ lent. Neque enim propheta de hominibus, sed de idolis gentium loquitur. Nam quemadmo¬ dum sanctus David simulacra gentium irrisit dicens : Oculos habent, et non videbunt , aures habent , et non audient etc. Psalm. cxm. (2), sic Isaias exprobrat illis imbecillitatem, quod cum Dii habeantur a stultis hominibus, tamen nulli prodesse, aut nocere possint. Secundum testimonium sumunt exiliis ver¬ bis Ezechielis cap. xxxvi : Dabo vobis cor no¬ vum, et faciam ut inprseceptis meis ambuletis (3). Qui non habenteor novum, non possunt in praeceptis Domini ambulare, qui habent cor novum, non possunt in iisdem praeceptis non ambulare ; quoniam alioqui falsa esset illa promissio, faciam ut in praeceptis meis ambuletis ; igitur nulli habent simul potesta¬ tem ambulandi in praeceptis, ac non ambu¬ landi, ac per hoc nulli habent liberum arbi¬ trium in moralibus. Respondeo : qui non habet cor novum, non potest praecepta Domini omnia, sicut oportet, observare ; dum talis es^ hoc est, dum gerit cor vetus ; tamen absolute potest si velit om¬ nia mandata Domini sicut oportet, observare, (1) Isai. XLI, 23, - (2)Psal. CXIII, 5. — (3) Eph. XXXVI, 26. i 02 ' LIBER V. quia potest exuere cor vetus, et induere no¬ vum, si velit vocationi Domini acquiescere, seque ad Deum ex toto corde convertere. Scriptum est enim : Facite vobis cor novum , et spiritum novum. Ezechiel. xvm. pari ratione qui habet cor novum, non potest, dum talis est, non ambulare in praeceptis Domini, ta¬ men absolute potest, quia potest exuere cor novum, si velit se avertere a Deo, juxta illud ejusdem Prophetsein eodem cap 18 : Si aver¬ terit se justus a justitia sua etc. (1). Potest igi¬ tur absolute homo per liberum arbitrium be¬ ne facere si velit, et non facere, si non velit. Tertium testimonium ex illo Psal. cxviii. Inclina cor meum in testimonia .tua. Et III Re¬ gum vin : Inclinet cor nostrum ad se Dominus , ut servemus mandata ejus (2). Respondeo : probant hsec testimonia, sine Dei gratia non posse a nobis omnia mandata servari, quod (ut saepe diximus) libentissime confitemur. Non autem probant hominem non esse liberi arbitrii. Quoniam non inclinat Deus corda nostra cogendo, aut necessitatem adferendo, sed interna inspiratione suaden¬ do, et invitando, ita ut in potestate volunta¬ tis relinquatur consentire vocanti, etsuadenti, vel non consentire. Atqui dicet aliquis : Quid aliud facit Deus cum nos inclinat, quam ope¬ rari, ut consentiamus? Ita est; facit Deus per auxilium gratiee suge, ut vocanti consentia¬ mus, sed hoc facit adjuvando infirmitatem, non tollendo libertatem. De qua re plura dicemus in sequenti libro. Quartum testimonium ex illo Joan. vin. ad Rom. vi. et II Petri ii : Qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati (3). At servitus, et libertas opponuntur. v Respondeo : servitus et libertas generatim accepta sine dubio opponuntur, sed non quae¬ vis servitus cuivis libertati opponjtur. Alio- qui non diceret Apostolus ad Rom. cap. vi. Eos, qui sunt servi peccati, liberos esse ju¬ stitiae, et contra, liberatos a peccato, servos esse justitiae. Itaque servitus peccati opponi¬ tur libertati a peccato, non libertati natura3, quae proprie dicitur liberum arbitrium. Nam qui servus est peccati, non potest suis viribus excutere jugum peccati, et ad libertatem jus¬ titiae pervenire, potest tamen per liberum arbitrium, adjuvante Deo, liberari a peccato, et potest, si velit, per se manere in servitute peccati. Sicut etiam e contrario, servitus na¬ turae, id est, naturalis determinatio ad unum qualis est in pecoribus, opponitur libertati, naturae, id est, libero voluntatis arbitrio ; non tamen liberati a peccato. Immb quae caret libertate naturae, hoc ipso quod illa carent, non possunt ullo modo servire peccato. Quintum testimonium ex illo Joan. xv. Si¬ cut palmes non potest aseme ipso ferre fructum, nisi manserit in vite , ita et vos, nisi in me man¬ seritis (4). Palmes, inquiunt, a vite praecisus non potest non arescere, in vite autem insi¬ tus, et ex ea vivens, non potest non ferre fructum : igitur nec homines, qui palmitibus comparantur, habent ullo tempore liberta¬ tem ad opposita. Respondeo : homo rectissime palmiti com¬ paratur, quia sine succo vitis coelestis, quae Christus est, non potest producere opera sa¬ lutifera, et coelestia ; tamen quoniam idem homo palmes est rationalis, potest per libe¬ rum arbitrium, cum est in vite, ab illa sponte recedere et arescere, et a vite praecisus per idem liberum arbitrium, adjuvante summo agricola, potest in vite rursum inseri et fru¬ ctum ferre. Itaque probant istse similitudines necessitatem gratise, sed non excludunt arbi¬ trii libertatem. Sextum testimonium ex illo prioris ad Co¬ rinthios cap. iv : Quid enim habes quod non ac¬ cepisti (3) ? At si nihil habemus proprii et no¬ stri, certe non sumus Domini actionum, nec illai sunt in nostra potestate. Respondeo, idem Apostolus in iii. cap. ejusdem epistolaj, fatetur, nos habere aliquid proprii et nostri, cum ait, Unusquisque pro¬ priam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem, ubi quod Latinus interpres reddi¬ dit (suum) in Greeco fonte est, tSiov, id est, • proprium. Habemus igitur dono Dei liberum arbitrium, sed hoc dono accepto, domini su¬ mus actionum, et quia possumus eas pro ar¬ bitrio facere, vel omittere, propriae et nostrae esse dicuntur, et quamvis opera sancta, de quibus loquitur eo loco B. Paulus, sint etiam peculiari ratione dona Dei, quatenus non fiunt sine gratia, tamen sunt etiam opera nostra propria quatenus poteramus per libe¬ rum arbitrium ea non facere, et ideo (ut jam diximus) eodem Apostolo teste, debetur eis merces propria, et non immerito labores no¬ stri, et proprii nominantur. (1) Ezech. XVIII, 31 ; ibid. 2 4. - (2) Psal. CXVIII, 36; III Reg. VIII, 58. — (3) Joan. VIII, 34 ; ltom. VI, 20; HPet. II, 19. —(4) Joan. XV, 4. - (5) I Corin. IV, 7. CAPUT XXX. 103