Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book III: On the Sin of the First Man
Chapter 3: On the serpent which seduced Eve: that it was a true and natural serpent, and that the devil spoke through it
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book III. 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).
It follows that we say a few things about the tempter of the first men, especially since the heretics have variously depraved this part of the doctrine.
The most ancient heresy — named from the Greek word ὄφις, which signifies serpent — was that of the Ophites, of whom mention is made by Irenaeus, book 1 On Heresies, chapter 34; Tertullian, in the book On Prescription against Heretics, chapter 47; Clement of Alexandria, book 7 of the Stromata; Epiphanius, heresy 37 [al. 27]; Jerome, in the dialogue against the Luciferians; Augustine, in the book On Heresies, chapter 17; Philastrius, Theodoret, Damascene, and others who write of heresies. These taught that that serpent was the wisdom of God, which opened the eyes of the first men that they might discern good and evil; and that it did this in hatred of the Creator, to whom it was itself contrary. The same error was afterwards taught also by Manichaeus, Augustine being witness in the book On Heresies, chapter 46, who would have it that that serpent was Christ. Origen also, after his manner transferring to allegory all things which seemed to him absurd, would have delectation understood by the serpent. For first delectation titillates and seduces the sense, as it were Eve; then the sense bends the mind — that is, Adam — to consenting and to sinning. See Ambrose, book On Paradise, chapter 2, where he relates this opinion, the name of Origen being suppressed. Nor were there wanting (Procopius being witness, in the commentary on the third chapter of Genesis) those who asserted that the devil put on a phantastic body in the likeness of a serpent. Julian, finally (as it is in Cyril, book 3 against Julian), contended that the narration of Moses about the serpent was altogether fabulous — chiefly on this account, that the serpent is related to have spoken with a human voice.
But that it was a true and natural serpent, yet that the devil spoke through it, is so plain from the sacred writings that scarcely any proof seems needed. For the things which are said in chapter 3 of Genesis about the punishment of the serpent — that it is cursed above all cattle and beasts of the earth; that it goes upon its breast; that it eats earth; that there is perpetual enmity between the children of Eve and serpents — most openly square with a true and natural serpent, as is known; with the wisdom of God, or with delectation, they agree by no reasoning. Wherefore with the highest consent the holy Fathers teach that it was a true serpent: as Chrysostom, homily 16 on Genesis; Basil, in the oration That God Is Not the Author of Evils; Epiphanius, on the heresy of the Ophites; Augustine, book 2 On Genesis, chapter 2 [al. book 11]; and others.
But that not the mute serpent itself of itself, but the devil through it, spoke, the book of Wisdom testifies, chapter 2, in these words: God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: and they follow him that are of his side. Christ also testifies, John 8, when he says: You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth. For he was a murderer from the beginning in no other way than because, as St. Leo speaks, he slew the first men with the poison of his envy. St. John also testifies, in the Apocalypse, chapter 20, where for no other cause does he call the devil the old serpent than because the devil in the beginning put on the serpent. Finally all the Fathers testify: both those who interpret the book of Genesis, or wrote questions upon it — as Jerome, Theodoret, Eucherius, Bede, Rupert, Chrysostom, and Augustine — and also Cyprian, in the sermon on zeal and envy; Basil, in the oration That God Is Not the Author of Evils; Ambrose, in the book On Paradise; Cyril, book 3 against Julian; and others everywhere.
But as to Julian's thinking it fabulous that a serpent could speak, Cyril rightly reprehends him in the place noted — since among the heathen, whose opinions Julian confessed himself to follow, both horses and rivers are believed to have sometimes spoken; but among Christians brute animals are not thought able to speak of themselves, yet angelic spirits, whether good or evil, are thought easily able to accomplish this through the mouths of beasts. For not only did the serpent, full of the spirit of the devil, speak; but also the ass of Balaam, a good angel moving her, speaking with the voice of a man, forbade the folly of the prophet, as St. Peter speaks in his later epistle, chapter 2; and the history is known from chapter 22 of Numbers.
One doubt remains: whether the devil of his own accord chose the serpent, through which he might endeavor to seduce Eve, or was not permitted by God to assume any other beast than the serpent. St. John Chrysostom, homily 16 on Genesis, writes that the devil chose the serpent of set purpose, because it seemed most apt, on account of its natural craftiness, for laying snares for the woman. But more probable seems the opinion of St. Augustine, book 11 On Genesis, chapter 3, who teaches that Satan was not permitted to use any other instrument than the mouth of the serpent. For since the mind of the devil tended to this, that he might seduce, he could more easily hope to attain what he sought if he covered his snares than if he laid them open. But he would cover them if he assumed a dove or a sheep, which are animals of a simple and innocent nature. But God willed that, if the devil wished to tempt man, he should not do it save through the serpent — so that, as he permitted the devil to tempt, so he might admonish man, even from the very form of the serpent, which he was not ignorant was a crafty animal, to beware of snares. And what St. Chrysostom says — that the devil sought an animal fit for laying snares — would have place if Eve could have been deceived by that craftiness which is naturally in the serpent; but since not the cunning of the mute serpent, but of the devil himself, was needed for seducing man, the devil could as well through a serpent as through a dove — and (as we have said) with more hidden counsel and greater fraud through a dove — carry through the business of seduction.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. De serpente, qui Evam seduxit , quod verus et naturalis fuerit serpens, quodque per eum diabolus sit locutus. Sequitur ut de primorum hominum tenta- tore pauca dicamus, praesertim cum ait hanc doctrinae partem haeretici varie depra- varint. Antiquissima haeresis a Graeca voce &pi?, quae serpentem significat, Ophitarum fuit, cujus meminerunt, Irenaeus lib. i. de haere- sibus cap. 34. Tertullianus in lib. de prae¬ scriptione adversus haereticos cap. 47. Cle¬ mens Alexandrinus lib. vii. Stromatum. Epi- phanius haeresi 27. Hieronymus in dialogo adversus Luciferianos. Augustinus in lib. de haeresib. cap. 17. Philastrius, Theodoretus, Damascenus, et alii, qui de haeresibus scri¬ bunt. Hi docebant, sapientiam Dei serpentem illum esse, qui primorum hominum oculos aperuit, ut bonum, malumque dignoscerent. Idque fecisse in odium creatoris, cui ipsa con¬ traria esset. Eumdem errorem postea docuit etiam Ma- (1) Rom V, 20 ; ibid. 15, CAPUT III. 307 nichaeus Augustino teste in lib. de hseresibus, cap. 46 ; qui serpentem illum Christum esse volebat. Origenes etiam more suo ad allego¬ riam omnia, quai absurda illi videbantur, transferens , per serpentem delectationem intelligi voluit. Primo enim delectatio sensum quasi Evam, titillat et seducit. Deinde sen¬ sus mentem, hoc est, Adamum ad consen¬ tiendum, et peccandum inflectit. Vide Ambro¬ sium libro de paradiso cap. 2. ubi hanc sen¬ tentiam, tacito nomine Origenis refert. Nec defuerunt (teste Procopio in commentario tertii capitis Geneseos) qui assuerunt diabo¬ lum induisse corpus phantasticum ad simili¬ tudinem serpentis. Julianus denique (ut est apud Cyrillum lib. m. in Julianum) narra¬ tionem Mosis de serpente fabulosam, omnino fuisse contendit, eo praesertim nomine,' quod serpens humana voce locutus fuisse perhi¬ beatur Caeterum verum illum, et naturalem ser¬ pentem fuisse, sed per eum diabolum esse locutum, tam ex litteris sacris perspicuum est, ut vix ulla probatione opus esse videatur. Nam quae dicuntur cap. 3. Gen. de poena serpentis, quod maledictus sit super omnia animantia, et bestias terrae, quod super pectus suum gradiatur ; quod terram comebat, quod inimicitia perpetua sit inter filios Hevae et serpentes, apertissime in verum et naturalem serpentem quadrat, ut notum est ; in sapientia Dei, vel delectationem nulla ratione conve¬ niunt. Quocirca summo consensu sancti Pa¬ tres docent, verum illum fuisse serpentem, ut Chrysostomus homil. 16. in Gen., Basilius in oratione quod Deus non sit auctor malo¬ rum, Epiphanius in haeresi Ophitarum, Augu¬ stinus lib. ii. de Genes, cap. 2. et alii. Non autem ipsum perse mutum serpentem, sed diabolum per eum esse locutum, testatur liber Sap. cap. 2. his verbis : Deus creavit hominem inexterminabilem, et ad imaginem si¬ militudinis sux fecit illum ; invidia autem dia¬ boli mors introivit in orbem terrarum, imitantur autem illum, qui sunt ex parte illius (1). Te¬ statur etiam Christus Joan. vm. cum ait : Fos ex patre diabolo estis, et desideria patris vestri vultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab ini¬ tio , et in veritate non stetit (2). Homicida enim ab initio non aliter fuit, nisi quia primos ho¬ mines, ut loquitur S. Leo, veneno suae morti- ficavit invidiae. Testatur quoque S. Joannes in Apocalypsi cap. xx. ubi non alia de causa diabolum vocat serpentem antiquum , nisi quia cyabolus initio serpentem induit. Testantur denique omnes Patres, tum ii, qui librum Geneseos interpretantur, vel quaestiones in eum scripserunt, ut Hieronymus, Theodo- retus, Eucherius, Beda, Eupertus, Chryso¬ stomus et Augustinus, tum etiam Cyprianus in sermone de zelo et livore, Basilius in ora¬ tione, quod Deus non sit auctor malorum, Ambrosius in libro de paradiso, Cyrillus lib. m. in Julianum, et alii passim. Quod vero Julianus serpentem loqui po¬ tuisse, fabulosum putat, recte reprehendit Cyrillus loco notato, cum apud ethnicos, quorum opiniones Julianus sequi se fatebatur, et equi, et fluvii aliquando locuti esse cre¬ dantur : caeterum apud Christianos non exi¬ stimantur animantia bruta per se loqui posse, sed posse tamen spiritus angelicos sive bonos, sive malos id per ora bestiarum facile prae¬ stare. Non enim serpens dumtaxat spiritu diaboli plenus locutus est, sed etiam asina Balaam, bono angelo eam movente, hominis voceloquens prohibuit prophetae insipientiam, ut loquitur sanctus Petrus in epistola poste¬ riore cap. ii. et nota est historia ex cap. xxii. Num. Una superest dubitatio : An diabolus sponte sua serpentem elegerit, per quem Evam se¬ ducere conaretur, an aliam bestiam non sit a Deo permissus assumere, quam serpentem. S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 16. in Ge¬ nesim , scribit diabolum de industria ser¬ pentem elegisse, quod is aptissimus videretur ob naturalem suam calliditatem ad insidias mulieri faciendas. Sed probabilior videtur sententia sancti Augustini lib. n. de Gen. cap. 3. qui docet, Satanam non fuisse permissum alio instru¬ mento uti, quam serpentis ore. Cum enim mens diaboli eo tenderet, ut seduceret, faci¬ lius sperare potuit se consecuturum quod quasrebat, si insidias tegeret, quam si ape¬ riret. Tegeret autem si columbam aut ovem assumeret, quai sunt animalia naturse simpli- ciset innocentis. Sed voluit Deus, ut si diabo¬ lus hominem tentare vellet, id non faceret nisi per serpentem, ut sicut diabolo permittebat tentare, ita hominem admoneret etiam ex ipsa forma serpentis, quem callidum animal esse non ignorabat, ut caveret insidias. Quod vero S. Chrysostomus dicit, diabolum quaisi- visse idoneum animal ad insidias faciendas, (1) Sap. II, 23. - (2) Joan. Vm, 44. LIBEIt III. 308 locum haberet, si ea calliditate, quae natura¬ liter in serpente inest, Eva decipi potuisse^ sed cum non serpentis muti, sed diaboli ip¬ sius astutia necessaria fuerit ad hominem seducendum, seque potuit diabolus per ser¬ pentem, ac per columbam, et (ut diximus) occultiore consilio , ac majori fraude per columbam negotium seductionis peragere.