Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Grace and Free Choice · Book VI: Grace and Free Choice in Works of Piety
Chapter 13: The objections of the adversaries drawn from the divine writings are dissolved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, Book VI. 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 adversaries bring forward many testimonies of divine Scripture, which we shall dissolve in order.
In the first place they bring forward that of Ezechiel 36: I will take away from you the stony heart, and will give you a heart of flesh; I will put my spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in my commandments. They observe that the evil will of man is named a stony heart for this reason: that, as in a stone there is no cooperation if it is to be turned into flesh, so also there is no cooperation of the human will in its own change from evil to good; and that therefore God did not say, “I will cause that you may be able to walk in my precepts,” but, “I will cause that you walk.” For they who have a heart of flesh, they alone walk in the precepts; they who have a stony one walk not. I answer: free choice is neither a stony heart nor a fleshly one, but a certain middle and natural power, which can receive the form of stone — that is, the hardness of sin — and the form of flesh — that is, the tenderness of grace. So speaks St. Augustine in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter 33, where he says that free choice, naturally bestowed on the rational creature, is that middle power which can be bent toward faith, or inclined toward unbelief. And book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 18: “The choice of the will is bent freely this way and that, and is among those natural goods which the evil man also can use ill.” Now this middle and natural power, when through sin it is such as to be called a stony heart, has not of itself the power by which it may convert itself to God and become fleshly; but it receives that power through the prevenient grace of God. For free choice, aroused and prepared through the prevenient grace of God, can, through the powers it receives from God, cooperate toward its own conversion. Nor does the similitude of the stone stand in the way; for similitudes need not agree in all points. The similitude has place only in this: that as the stone has not of itself to cooperate, if perchance it be turned into flesh, so also free choice has not of itself to cooperate toward its own conversion; yet it can receive from God, through prevenient grace, the power of working — which the stone cannot. And to signify this dissimilitude, or disparity, perhaps, the same Prophet Ezechiel, chapter 18, says: Make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Nor can Chemnitz and Calvin deny this disparity, since they themselves confess that in the conversion of the sinner the action of the human will is not excluded — who yet would not concede a like action to a stone, if it were truly to be converted into flesh. And that God says, I will cause that you walk in my precepts, takes nothing from the liberty of choice. For he who has a fleshly heart, while he has such a heart — that is, imbued with charity — cannot not walk in the precepts of the Lord, because charity is not idle, and the fulness of the law is love; yet absolutely he can walk and not walk in the precepts of the Lord, because he can retain or cast away charity — that is, remain fleshly, or be changed into stone. From which solution is uncovered the deception, or fraud, of Chemnitz. For he writes that the Catholics are of this opinion: that free choice, aroused through grace, puts forth the powers it had even before it was aroused, and through those its own powers consents to the divine calling — so that prevenient grace does not bestow powers on free choice, but as it were awakens them from sleep. But the Catholics do not hold this; rather, they acknowledge indeed free choice in man even before divine grace forestall him — because free choice is a natural thing, which is not lost through sin — but yet they do not say, nor hold, that free choice has of itself any power, at least proximate, toward the acts of piety; but that it receives it from God through prevenient grace.
In the second place they bring forward that of Psalm 50: Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels. For by these words it seems to be signified that nothing at all cooperates with the grace of God working in oneself — in the way that which is newly created does not cooperate toward its own creation. I answer: the solution is easy. For the substance of the heart is not created in justification, but the cleanness itself is effected, which through sin had perished; and for a clean heart to be created is nothing else than for the heart itself to be cleansed and purged. Wherefore it is not absurd if the very substance of the spiritual heart, having received the seed of divine grace, cooperate toward the fruit of its own conversion, and the germinating of the works of piety.
Third, they bring forward that of Psalm 99: He made us, and not we ourselves. For the Prophet seems to speak of regeneration rather than of the first creation, since a little after he subjoins: His people, and the sheep of his pasture. I answer: literally David speaks of the first creation, as St. Augustine himself also expounds in the commentary; which benefit pertains no less to the holy than to the impious; and therefore the Prophet exhorts the holy to give thanks for this benefit, saying: His people, and the sheep of his pasture, go ye into his gates with praise, etc. But we also willingly acknowledge that this can be said of justification: “He made us, and not we ourselves.” For it is God who justifies, and who regenerates unto a lively hope; and we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, as the Scriptures speak. But as, looking to the term of justification — that is, the infused habit of charity — he makes us, and not we ourselves, since he alone pours in the habit of charity; so, looking to the disposition toward justification, we ourselves, God helping, make it — which Ezechiel expressed, chapter 18, when he says: He shall make his own soul live.
Fourth, they bring forward that of John 6: Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. For hence it follows that it is not free to man to receive grace or reject it; otherwise it could come to pass that someone should hear and not come. I answer: everyone who has heard, and has so heard as to learn, without doubt comes — because to learn is to be persuaded and to believe; and he who has been persuaded cannot not come, in the composed sense; yet absolutely he can not come, because he can hear and not learn, nor be persuaded. For not in vain does the Prophet cry, in Psalm 94: To day if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
Fifth, they bring forward that of 2 Corinthians 3: We are not sufficient to think any thing of ourselves. No power of free choice, therefore, remains in us, which, God helping, might be perfected. I answer: this place most greatly favors us. For the Apostle does not deny that we are sufficient; but he denies that we are sufficient of ourselves; for he straightway adds: but our sufficiency is from God. And so we are sufficient to think something — nay, even to will and to do — but after we have received powers from God; and unless we were of free choice, we should not rightly be said not to be sufficient of ourselves — as no one would rightly say that a beast of burden, or a stone, is not sufficient of itself to think something of God.
Sixth, they bring forward that of 1 Corinthians 12: Who worketh all in all. I answer: but he works our salvation only with us cooperating; otherwise the Lord would have said in vain, John 6: Labour not for the meat which perisheth, etc.
Seventh, they bring forward that of Philippians 2: Who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. But to work the very willing is not to help that we may be able to will, but simply to make us will. I answer: when God works in us the willing, he does not only help that we may be able to will, but arouses and helps that we may in fact will; accordingly he does not do this without us — otherwise the Apostle would not say in the same place, With fear and trembling work out your salvation, but would say: there is nothing for you to work, for God alone works in you both to will and to accomplish.
Eighth, they bring forward that of 1 John 3: Whosoever is born of God cannot sin; for his seed abideth in him. “Beyond controversy” (says Calvin) “it is elicited from the words of John that the hearts of the pious are so efficaciously governed by God that they follow with an inflexible affection.” I answer: by the name of seed St. John does not understand the help of grace which determines man from necessity to working, as Calvin seems to hold, but the grace of infused charity — as can be learned from Jerome, in book 2 against Jovinian, and from Augustine, tractate 5 on the epistle of John; which is also manifestly gathered from the words of John himself. For he does not say that the sinner cannot not be converted, or not believe, because the seed of God abides in him; but that he cannot sin who is already born of God — that is, the just man — because the seed of God abides in him. And so he calls the seed of God the very birth from God, or that through which man is born of God and is a son of God — which is the very charity poured forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us. Further, he who has charity (as we have often said already) neither sins — deadly, namely — nor can sin, while charity remains in him; but absolutely he can lose charity — nay, even cast it away — and sin.
Ninth, they bring forward testimonies from chapters 2 and 3 [al. 5] to the Ephesians, and from chapter 3 [al. 5] of John, where sinners are called dead and buried, and are called back to life only through the grace of Christ. For certainly dead and buried men neither cooperate with God, if perchance he will to call them back to life, nor is it free to them to remain in death or to rise from death. I answer: this argument rightly proves (as we showed above) that the sinner, because he is dead, cannot of himself, or by his own powers, recover life, or in any way prepare himself for recovering life. But it does not prove that the same sinner, aroused through prevenient grace and helped, cannot cooperate with God calling him back to life; for he does that not as dead, but as having a vital power from God. Add that (as we said above) similitudes do not agree in all points. Wherefore, although corpses properly so called — since they are dead in every way, and retain no kind of life — in no way cooperate toward their own raising, yet they who are dead in sins, since they live with the life of nature, though they live not with the life of grace, will be able — not as dead, but as living by the one kind of life — to cooperate toward their own vivification according to the other kind of life, if they shall have received from God the power of cooperating.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Diluuntur objectiones adversariorum , depromptae ex divinis litteris. Multa proferunt adversarii testimonia di¬ vinae, Scripturae, quae nos ordine diluemus. Primo loco proferunt illud Ezech. xxxvr Auferam a vobis cor lapideum, et dabo vobis cor carneum , spiritum meum ponam in medio vestri , et faciam , ut in praeceptis meis ambu¬ letis (1). Observant cor lapideum, ideo no¬ minari malam hominis voluntatem, quoniam sicut in lapide nulla est cooperatio, si debeat verti in carnem, sic etiam nulla est coope¬ ratio voluntatis humanae, in sua mutatione, de mala in bonam, et ideo non dixisse Deum, faciam, ut in praeceptis meis ambulare pos¬ sitis, sed faciam, ut ambuletis. Qui enim cor carneum habent, illi soli ambulant in prae¬ ceptis, qui habent lapideum , non ambu¬ lant. Respondeo : liberum arbitrium non est cor lapideum, neque carneum, sed vis quaedam media et naturalis, quae formam lapidis, id est, peccati duritiem et formam carnis, id est, gratiae teneritudinem recipere potest. Sic loquitur S. Augustinus in lib. de Spiritu et littera cap. 33. ubi dicit, liberum arbitrium (I) Ezech. XXXVI, 26. 132 LIBER VI. et naturaliter attributum creaturae rationali, osse vim illam mediam, quae intendi ad fi¬ dem, ei inclinari ad infidelitatem potest. Et lib. ii. de peccat, merit. et remissis, cap. 18. <i Voluntatis arbitrium, inquit, huc atque illuc liberum flectitur, atque in eis naturali¬ bus bonis est, quibus et male uti malus pot¬ est. » Haec autem vis media et naturalis, quando per peccatum talis est, ut dicatur cor lapideum, non habet ex se potestatem, qua se convertat ad Deum, et fiat carneum, sed eam recipit per gratiam Dei praevenientem. Liberum enim arbitrium per gratiam Dei praevenientem excitatum et praeparatum , potest per vires, quas a Deo recipit, coope¬ rari ad suam ipsius conversionem. Neque obstat similitudo lapidis ; non enim similitudines convenire debent in omnibus. In eo tantum similitudo locum habet, quod sicut lapis ex se non habet, ut cooperetur,' si forte convertatur in carnem, sic etiam li¬ berum arbitrium ex se non habet, ut coope¬ ratur ad suam ipsius conversionem ; potest tamen a Deo recipere potestatem operandi per gratiam prievenientem, quod non potest lapis. Atque ad hanc dissimilitudinem, sive disparitatem, forte significandam, idem Pro¬ pheta Ezechiel cap. xvm. dicit : Facite vobis cor novum et spiritum novum (1). Neque pos¬ sunt Kemnitius et Calvinus hanc disparitatem negare, cum ipsi fateantur, non excludi in conversione peccatoris actionem voluntatis humanae, qui tamen lapidi non concederent similem actionem, si vere in carnem conver¬ tendus esset. Quod autem Deus dicit : Faciam , ut in praeceptis meis ambuletis , nihil conet arbitrii libertati. Nam qui habet cor carneum, Tlum tale cor habet, id est, charitate imbutum, non potest non ambulare in praeceptis Do¬ mini, quia charitas non est otiosa, et pleni¬ tudo legis estdilectio : potest tamen absolute ambulare et non ambulare in praeceptis Do¬ mini, quia potest retinere, vel abjicere cha- ritatem, id est, manere carneum, vel in la¬ pideum commutari. Ex qua solutione detegitur deceptio, vel fraus Kemnitii. Scribit enim, Catholicos in ea sententia esse, ut liberum arbitrium per gra¬ tiam excitatum, exerat vires, quas habebat etiam antequam excitaretur , et per illas suas vires vocationi divinai consentiat; ita ut gratia praeveniens, non tribuat vires libero arbitrio, sed quasi sopitas excitet. At non hoc sentiunt Catholici, sed agnoscunt quidem liberum arbitrium in homine, etiam ante¬ quam eum gratia divina praeveniat, quia li¬ berum arbitrium est res naturalis, quae per peccatum non amittitur, sed tamen non di¬ cunt, nec sentiunt, liberum arbitrium habere ex se potentiam ullam, faltem proximam ad actus pietatis, sed eam accipere a Deo per gratiam praevenientem. Secundo ioco proferunt illud Psalm.L. Cor mundum crea in me Deus , et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis (2). Videtur enim his verbis significari, nihil omnino cooperari gratiae Dei in se operandi, quo modo non cooperatur ad suam creationem id, quod re¬ cens creatur. Respondeo : facilis est solutio. Non enim cordis substantia in justificatione creatur, sed mundities ipsa efficitur, quae per peccatum perierat : nihilque aliud est, cor mundum creari, nisi cor ipsum mundari, atque pur¬ gari. Quare non est absurdum, si substantia ipsa cordis spiritualis, accepto semine divinae gratiae, cooperetur ad fructum conversionis suae, et pietatis opera germinanda. Tertio, proferunt illud Psal. lxlix. Ipse fecit nos, et non ipsi nos. Videtur enim Pro¬ pheta loqui, de regeneratione potius, quam de prima creatione, cum paulo post subjun¬ gat : Populus ejus, 'et oves pascuae ejus. Respondeo : ad litteram loquitur David de prima creatione, ut ipse etiam S. Augustinus exponit in commentar, quod beneficium non minus pertinet ad sanctos, quam ad impios, et ideo Propheta sanctos hortatur, ut pro hoc beneficio gratias agant, dicens : Populus ejus, et oves pascuae ejus, introite portas ejus, in confessione, etc. Sed et illud piaetorea libenter agnoscimus de justificatione dici posse : Ipse fecit nos, et non ipsi nos. Deus enim est, qui justificat, et qui regenerat in spem vivam, et nos ejus factura sumus creati in Christo Jesu, in ope¬ ribus bonis, ut Scripturai loquuntur. Caute¬ rum, sicut respiciendo terminum justifica¬ tionis, id est, habitum charitatis infusum, ipse facit nos, et non ipsi nos, quoniam solus ipse habitum charitatis infundit, ita respi¬ ciendo dispositionem ad justificationem, ipsi nos, Deo adjuvante, facimus, quod expressit Ezechiel cap. xvm. cum ait : Ipse animam suam vivificabit. (f) Ezecli. XVIII, 31. — (2) Psal. L, 12. - (}) Psal. XCIX 3. CAPUT XIII. 133 Quarto, proferunt illud Joan. vi : Omnis qui audivit a Patre et didicit , venit ad me (1). Hinc enim sequitur, non esse liberum homini gratiam recipere, vel rejicere. Alioqui fieri posset, ut aliquis audiret et non veniret. Respondeo : omnis qui audivit, et ita au¬ divit, ut disceret, sine dubio venit, quia di¬ scere est persuaderi et credere. Qui autem persuasus est, non potest non venire, in sensu composito, tamen absolute potest non venire, quia potest audire, et non discere, nec persuaderi. Nec enim frustra clamat Propheta in Psalm. lxuv : Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis , nolite obdurare corda vestra (-2). Quinto, proferunt illud II ad Corinth. m : Non sumus sufficientes cogitare aliquid ex nobis (3). Nulla igitur virtus liberi arbitrii manet in nobis, qua; juvante Deo perficiatur. Respondeo : hic locus maxime nobis favet, non enim negat Apostolus, nos sufficientes esse, sed negat, nos esse sufficientes ex nobis, continuo enim addit : Sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. Itaque sufficimus aliquid cogitare, inimo etiam velle, et facere ; sed posteaquam vires a Deo accepimus, et nisi liberi essemus arbitrii, non recte diceremur non sufficere ex nobis, sicut non recte diceret aliquis, ju¬ mentum, aut lapidem non sufficere ex se aliquid cogitare de Deo. Sexto, proferunt illud I ad Corinth. mi : Qui operatur omnia in omnibus (i). Respondeo : sed non nisi cooperantibus nobis salutem nostram operatur. Alioqui frustra dixisset Dominus Joan. vi. Operamini non cibum, qui perit, etc. (5). Septimo, proferunt illud ad Philipp. 2 : Qui operatur velle et perficere pro bona volun¬ tate (6). At operari ipsum velle, non est ju¬ vare, ut possumus velle, sed est simpliciter facere ut velimus. Respondeo : cum Deus operatur in nobis velle, non juvat solum, ut possimus velle, sed excitat et juvat, ut re ipsa velimus. Pro¬ inde non facit hoc sine nobis, alioqui non di¬ ceret ibidem Apostolus : Cum timore et tre¬ more salutem vestram operamini, sed diceret, nihil est, quod vos operemini, nam solus Deus operatur in vobis velle et perficere. Octavo, proferunt illud l Joan. m : Qui natus est ex Deo, non potest peccare , quia se¬ men Dei manet ineo( 7).« Citra controversiam (inquit Calvinus) elicitur ex verbis Joannis (l) Joan. VI, 43. 27. -(6) Pliil. 11,13. sic efficaciter gubernari divinitus piorum corda, ut inflexibili affectu sequantur. » Respondeo : nomine seminis non intclligit S. Joannes gratiae auxilium, quod hominem determinet ex nccessitaie ad operandum, ut Calvinus sentire videtur, sed gratiam chari- tatis infusae, ut cognosci potest ex Hieronymo in lib. ii. adversus Jovinianum, et ex Augu¬ stino tract. 5. in epist. Joannis. Quod etiam manifeste colligitur ex verbis ipsius Joannis. Non enim dicit, peccatorem non posse non converti, aut non credere, quia semen Dei manet in eo : sed non posse peccare eum, qui jam ex Deo natus est, id est, hominem justum, quia semen Dei manet in eo. Itaque vocat semen Dei ipsam nativitatem ex Deo, sive id, per quod homo est natus ex Deo, et .est filius Dei, quae est ipsa charitas infusa in cordibus nostris, per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis. Porro qui habet chari- tatem (ut saepe jam diximus) neque peccat, videlicet lcthalitcr, neque peccare potest, dum manet in eo charitas, sed absolute cha ritatem amittere, immo etiam abjicere potest et peccare. Nono, proferunt testimonia ex cap. 2. et 3. ad Ephes. et ex cap. 3. Joannis, ubi pec¬ catores dicuntur mortui et sepulti, nec nisi per Christi gratiam revocantur ad vitam. Certe enim mortui homines, et sepulti, nec cooperantur Deo, si forte velit eos ad vitam revocare, neque liberum est eis in morte permanere, aut a morte resurgere. Respondeo : hoc argnmentum recte probat (ut nos supra ostendimus) peccatorem, quia mortuus est, non posse ex se, aut suis viribus vitam recuperare, aut ullo modo ad vitam recuperandam se praeparare. Sed non pro¬ bat, non posse eumclem peccatorem per gra¬ tiam praevenientem excitatum et adjutum Deo, se ad vitam revocanti, cooperari. Id enim non facit ut mortuus, sed ut vitalem virtutem a Deo habens. Adde quod (utsupra diximus) similitudines non in omnibus conveniunt. Quare tametsi cadavera proprie dicta, quoniam omnibus modis mortua sunt, nec ullum vitae genus re¬ tinent, nullo modo cooperentur ad suam excitationem : tamen qui sunt mortui in peccatis, quoniam vivunt vita natura;, licet non vivant vita gratia;, poterunt non utmor- tui, sed ut vivi uno genere vita; cooperari ad •—(2) Psal. XC1V, 4. — (3) 11 Corin. III, 5, — (4) 1 Corin. XU, 0. — (5; Joan. VI — (7) l Joan. 111, !). 134 LIBER VI. suam vivificationem, secundum alterum ge¬ nus vitee, si virtutem cooperandi a Deo rece¬ perint.