Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book III: On the Sin of the First Man
Chapter 5: Objections are solved, and it is explained what the pride of the first men was
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 remains to solve some objections which are wont to be brought against the things we taught in the preceding chapter.
The first objection, of Luther: The temptation of Satan tended to this, that Eve should first believe that what God had said was not true — namely, that they would die who tasted the fruit of the forbidden tree — then, by tasting that fruit, should transgress the law of God; but Eve succumbed to the temptation; therefore she sinned first by not believing, then by tasting the forbidden fruit. Response: Satan endeavored to lead Eve not only to infidelity and disobedience, but also to pride. For to this end he said: For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. Wherefore the woman was first seduced and overcome by the tempter in this, that, lifted up into pride, she affected to be as God, knowing good and evil; then, blinded through pride, she believed the devil and did not believe God, and fell into open disobedience.
The second objection, of Luther and Calvin: Faith is the root and origin of justice; therefore infidelity is the root and origin of injustice. Response: From the antecedent laid down by the adversaries there follows the opposite of the consequent. For because faith is the origin of justice, it follows that infidelity is not the origin, but the end, of injustice. For what is first in generation is last in resolution. The foundation is the beginning of the building; but the overturning of the foundation is not the beginning, but the end, of the destruction. For he who builds begins from the foundation and ends at the roof; he who destroys begins from the roof and ends at the foundation. And in living things the heart first begins to live, and last ceases to live. Wherefore it is never said in the Scriptures that the root of all evils is infidelity, as it is said: the root of all evils is cupidity — that is, love of self, or of one's own excellence, which is pride. Nor do we anywhere read: the beginning of all sin is infidelity, as we read: the beginning of all sin is pride.
The third objection, of Calvin: Adam would never have dared to fight against the command of God unless incredulous of his word. Response: Adam would not have dared to fight against the manifest and express command of God, by which the tree of knowledge was forbidden, unless incredulous of his word; but neither would he have been incredulous of the word of God, unless, turned away from God through elation and forsaken of the divine light, he had begun to grow dark, as St. Augustine writes of Eve, book 11 On Genesis, chapter 30, and book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13. And hence can be explained another place of the same St. Augustine, from book 14 of the City of God, chapter 17, where he seems to constitute the first sin of the first men in infidelity, when he says: “This, then, they came to know which they would more happily have been ignorant of, if, believing God and obeying, they had not committed that which forced them to experience what infidelity and disobedience would harm.” For from this place it is only proved that there was in the sin of the first men infidelity and disobedience — the open, namely, which they committed when they tasted the forbidden tree; but it is not proved that pride and hidden disobedience did not precede, of which the same Augustine speaks in the place cited, in the same book, chapter 13.
The fourth objection is of Bonaventure and Scotus, who bring the testimony of St. Augustine from book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 42, and from book 14 of the City of God, chapter 11, where St. Augustine writes that Adam fell into the sin of disobedience from immoderate love toward his spouse — and thereby that the first sin of Adam was that love of his wife, and not pride. And lest perchance it be answered that the excessive love toward the spouse was prior to the manifest disobedience, but not to the hidden disobedience or pride, the place adduced from book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 42, is to be noted, where Augustine writes that Adam was in the state of innocence when he began to love his wife immoderately; for he speaks thus: “Adam was unwilling to sadden Eve, whom he believed able to pine away without his solace, if she were estranged from his mind, and utterly to perish by that discord — conquered not indeed by the concupiscence of the flesh, which he did not yet feel in the law of the members resisting the law of his mind, but by a certain friendly benevolence, by which it very often comes to pass that God is offended, lest a man from a friend become an enemy.” And this argument can be confirmed from chapter 3 of Genesis, where God, enumerating the sins of Adam, puts first that he hearkened to the voice of his wife, second that he ate of the forbidden tree.
I answer: St. Augustine indeed will have it that the inordinate love toward his wife was prior in Adam to the open disobedience, as the places cited demonstrate; yet he does not will it to have been prior to the hidden pride. For in book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13, he teaches the contrary in these words: “Now this defect is spontaneous; since, if the will had remained stable in the love of the higher unchangeable good, by which it was illumined that it might see, and kindled that it might love, it would not have been turned away thence to pleasing itself, and from this have grown dark and cold, so that either she should believe the serpent to have spoken true, or he should prefer the will of his wife to the command of God,” etc. First, then, according to Augustine, there was hidden pride in the soul of Adam; then the vice of inordinate love toward his wife; last, the open transgression of the divine command. Nor does St. Augustine say, in book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 42, that Adam was in the state of innocence when he began to love his wife immoderately; but he says that he had not yet felt the concupiscence of the flesh fighting against the law of the mind. For it could come to pass that, innocence and original justice being lost, that shameful motion did not immediately exist in the flesh, though it could immediately have existed. For even in this time, in which we lack original justice, we do not always suffer the rebellion of the flesh; and Eve had fallen into sin not only through interior pride, but also through exterior disobedience, and yet did not immediately feel the rebellion of the flesh — otherwise she would have recognized her nakedness, and blushed, before she led her husband to sin.
The fifth objection, which is of Scotus: Man knows other things before himself; therefore he loves others with the love of friendship before himself; and thereby the inordinate love of his wife was prior in Adam to that of his own excellence. I answer: this objection sins in many things. For first, since Adam had knowledge infused by God, he could know himself before other things. Next, whatever be of other things, certainly he knew himself before his wife, since he lived some time before his wife existed. Moreover, it is not necessary that what is first known be first loved, since something can be known and not loved. Finally, the first sin of the woman was love of self, as Scotus confesses; why, then, could not the first sin of the man also be love of self?
The sixth objection: If the first men had fallen at the beginning through pride, this assuredly would have happened because they desired to become as Gods, as Satan promised them. I ask, then, whether they believed they could become as Gods, or did not believe. For if they believed, certainly they fell into error, and so into infidelity, before they fell into elation and pride; if they did not believe, it does not appear how they could have desired to become as Gods. For that cannot be desired which is believed impossible.
I answer: St. Augustine, in the explication of Psalm 68, treating those words — Then did I pay that which I took not away — writes that the first men wished to seize divinity, and lost felicity. Which is not so to be taken as though they wished to change their nature, and from men to become Gods by essence. For that same Augustine in very many places explains that the pride of the first men lay in this, that they desired to become Gods by imitation and likeness: so that, as God knows good and evil, and needs no ruler and governor, and is subject to no one's power, so they themselves might know good and evil, and not need the providence of God, nor be under his command and power. Book 2 On Genesis against the Manichaeans, chapter 15: “We see,” says he, “by these words that the sin was persuaded through pride. For to this looks what was said: You shall be as Gods. What is understood here, but that they were persuaded to refuse to be under God, but rather to be in their own power without a lord, so as not to observe his law — as though he begrudged them their ruling themselves — not needing his interior light, but using their own providence, as it were their own eyes, for discerning good and evil, which he had forbidden? This, then, is what was persuaded: that they should love their own power too much,” etc. Tractate 4 on the epistle of John: “Adam, placed in paradise, despised the precept of God, and lifted up his neck, as it were desiring to be in his own power, and refusing to be subject to the power of God.” The same he teaches in the Enchiridion, chapter 45; book 8 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 13; and book 11, chapter 30; and book 14 of the City of God, chapter 13 — which places we cited in the preceding chapter.
Further, the beginning of this pride could be, and was, in man without any preceding error, through mere unthinking, or inconsideration. For the pride of the men did not begin from that act, “I will not be under the power of God”; but after the words of the devil were heard — You shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil (which words the woman heard from the devil himself, the man from the woman; as contrariwise the man had heard the precept of God from God himself, the woman from the man, Augustine being witness, book 11 On Genesis, chapter 34 [al. 31]) — they began to turn over within themselves that it is a fair thing not to depend on another; and at the same time they began to be delighted with their own power, and to desire it, and vehemently to please themselves; and, occupied with such thought, delight, and desire, they did not lift up their mind to God, nor did they consider that this could neither come to pass nor be expedient for them; and so, little by little turned more and more to themselves and away from God, they began to grow blind, and to give faith to the words of Satan, and to despise the precept and threats of God. For so (as Augustine teaches, book 14 of the City of God, chapter 28) one goes on step by step in the way of iniquity, from love of self even to contempt of God — as in the way of justice, from love of God even to contempt of self. And so the first sin of the first men seems to have been like that sin which by the theologians is called morose delectation. For neither do they who have morose delectation about monies, or dignities, or pleasures resolve to give themselves to thefts, ambition, or fornication; nor do they consider whether what they turn over in the mind can be done or not; but they are only delighted with that thought, as if the thing itself were at hand, and the sin were wrought not in imagination, but in deed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Solvuntur objectiones, et explicatur, quae fuerit surperbia primorum hominum. Superest objectiones aliquas solvere, quae contra ea, quae capite superiore docuimus, afferri solent. Prima objectio Lutheri. Satanae tentatio eo tendebat, ut primum crederet Eva non esse verum, quod Deus dixerat, morituros videli¬ cet, qui fructum ligni vetiti gustarent, deinde fructum illum gustando legem Dei praevari¬ caretur, succubuit autem Eva tentationi, igi¬ tur primum peccavit non credendo, deinde fructum vetitum degustando. Responsio. Sa¬ tanas non solum ad infidelitatem, et inobe- dientiam, sed etiam ad superbiam adducere conabatur Evam. Nam ideo dixit, scit enim Deus, quia quacumque die comederitis ape¬ rientur oculi vestri, et eritis sicut Dii scientes bonum et malum. Quare mulier in eo pri- (1) I Tira. I, 19; I Tim. VI, 10. 312 LIBEli III. muin a tentatore seducta et devicta est, quod in superbiam elata affectavit esse sicut Deus, sciens bonum et malum ; deinde per superbiam excsccata credidit diabolo, et non credidit Deo, et in apertam inobedientiam lapsa est. Secunda objectio Lutheri et Calvini. Fides est radix, et origo justitiae, ergo infidelitas radix, et origo injustitiae. Responsio. Ex ante¬ cedente ab adversariis posito, sequitur oppo¬ situm consequentis. Quia enim fides est ori¬ go justitia;, sequitur infidelitatem non esse originem, sed finem injustitiae. Nam quod est primum in generatione, est ultimum in resolutione. Fundamentum est principium aedificationis, sed eversio fundamenti non est principium, sed finis destructionis. Qui enim aedificat a fundamento incipit, intecto desi¬ nit: qui destruit incipit a tecto, desinit in fundamento. Et in animantibus cor primum incipit vivere: ultimum desinit vivere. Quare numquam in Scripturis dicitur, radix om¬ nium malorum est infidelitas, sicut dicitur : radix omnium malorum est cupiditas, id est, amor sui, sive propriae excellentia;, qua; est superbia. Neque legimus usquam, initium omnis peccati infidelitas, sicut legimus, ini¬ tium omnis peccati superbia. Tertia objectio Calvini. Nunquam repu¬ gnare imperio Dei ausus fuisset Adam, nisi ejus verbs incredulus. Responsio, Adam non fuisset ausus imperio Dei manifesto et ex¬ presso, quo lignum scientia; vetabatur, repug¬ nare, nisi verbo ejus incredulus: sed nec fuisset verbo, Dei incredulus, nisi per ela¬ tionem a Deo aversus divina luce destitutus, tenebrescere coepisset, ut sanctus Augusti¬ nus de Eva scribit, lib. xi. de Genes, cap. 30 et lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 13. Atque hinc ' explicari potest alius locus ejusdem S. Augustini ex lib. xiv de civit. Dei, cap. 17. ubi videtur primum peccatum primorum ho¬ minum constituere in infidelitate cum dicit: « Hoc itaque cognoverunt, quod felicius ignorarent, si Deo credentes, et obedientes non committerent, quod eos cogeret expe¬ riri, infidelitas et inobedientia quid noce¬ rent. » Solum enim ex hoc loco probatur fuisse in peccato primorum hominum infide¬ litatem, et inobedientiam, apertam videlicet, quam commiserunt dum lignum vetitum de¬ gustarunt: sed non probatur non praecessisse superbiam, et inobedientiam occultam, de qua idem Augustinus loquitur loco citato, in eodem lib. cap. 13. Quarta objectio est Bonaventura; et Scoti qui afferunt testimonium S. Augustini ex lib. xi. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 12 et cx lib. xiv de ci vitat. Dei, cap. 11. ubi S. Au¬ gustinus scribit Adamum incidisse in pecca¬ tum inobedientia; cx amore immoderato er¬ ga conjugem, ac per hoc primum peccatum Adami fuisse amorem illum uxoris, non au¬ tem superbiam. Ac ne forte respondeatur, amorem nimium erga conjugem fuisse prio¬ rem inobedientia manifesta, non autem ino¬ bedientia, vel superbia occulta, notandus est locus adductus ex lib. xi de Genesi ad litte¬ ram, cap. 12. ubi Augustinus scribit, Ada¬ mum fuisse in statu innocentia;, quando uxorem immoderate amare coepit, sic enim loquitur : « Adam noluit Evam contristari, quam credebat posse sine suo solatio conta¬ bescere, si ab ejus alienaretur animo, et om¬ nino illa interire discordia; non quidem carnis victus concupiscentia, quam nondum sensciat in resistente lege membrorum legi mentis sua;, sed amicali quadam benevolen¬ tia, qua plerumque fit, ut offendatur Deus, ne homo ex amico fiat inimicus. » Et confir¬ mari potest hoc argumentum ex cap. m. Ge¬ nes. ubi Deus enumerans peccata Adami, primum ponit, quod audierit vocem uxoris sum, secundum quod comederit de ligno ve¬ tito. Respondeo : sanctus Augustinus vult qui¬ dem amorem inordinatum erga uxorem fuisse priorem in Adamo, quam esset aperta inobedientia, ut loca citata demonstrant, tamen non vult priorem fuisse, quam super¬ biam occultam. Nam lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 13. contrarium in his verbis docet: « Spontaneus est autem iste defectus ; quo¬ niam si voluntas in amore superioris immu¬ tabilis boni, a quo illustrabatur, ut videret, et accendebatur, ut amaret, stabilis perma¬ neret, non inde ad sibi placendum avertere¬ tur, et ex hoc tenebresceret et frigesceret, ut vel illa verum crederet dixisse serpentem, vel ille Dei mandato uxoris pireponerct vo¬ luntatem etc. » Primo igitur secundum Augustinum fuit superbia occulta in animo Adami, deinde vitium inordinati amoris erga uxorem, po¬ stremo aperta mandati divini transgressio. Fequc in lib. xi. de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 42. dicit S. Augustinus Adamum fuisscj in statu innocentia;, quando immoderate uxo¬ rem amare coepit, sed dicit, nondum sen¬ sisse concupiscentiam carnis repugnantis CAPUT V. legi mentis. Potuit enim fieri, ut amissa in¬ nocentia, originalique justitia, non continuo extiterit in carne motus ille pudendus, quamvis continuo existere potuerit. Nam etiam hoc tempore, quo justitia originali caremus, non semper patimur carnis rebel¬ lionem, etEva non solum per superbiam in¬ teriorem, sed etiam per exteriorem inobe- dentiam lapsa fuerat in peccatum, et tamen non continuo sensit carnis rebellionem, alio- qui nuditatem suam agnovisset, et erubuis¬ set antequam virum suum ad peccandum induceret. Quinta objectio, quae Scoti est. Homo prius cognoscit alia, quam se, ergo prius amat amore amicitiae alios, quam se, ac per hoc prius fuit in Adamo inordinatus amor uxoris, quam propriae excellentiae. Itespondeo : Haec objectio in multis pec¬ cat. Primum enim cum Adam habuerit scien¬ tiam infusam a Deo, potuit prius cognoscere se, quam alia. Deinde, quidquid sit de aliis rebus, certe prius cognovit se, quam uxorem, cum aliquanto tempore vixerit, antequam uxor ejus existeret. Praeterea non est neces¬ sarium, ut quod prius cognoscitur, prius ametur, cum possit aliquid cognosci, et non amari : denique mulieris primum peccatum fuit amorproprius, ut Scotus fatetur, cur igi¬ tur non potuit etiam primum peccatum viri esse amor proprius? Sexta objectio. Si per superbiam primi homines initio lapsi essent, id profecto acci¬ disset, quia cupierunt fieri sicut Dii, ut Sa- tan illis promittebat. Qiuero igitur, an cre¬ diderint se posse fieri sicut Deos, an vero non crediderint : nam si crediderunt, certe in errorem, atque adeo in infidelitatem, prius quam in elationem, et superbiam lapsi sunt : si non crediderunt, non apparet quem- madmodum appetere potuerint, fieri sicut Dii. Neque enim id appeti potest, quod non posse fieri creditur. Respondeo. S. Augustinus in explicat. Psalm. lxviii. tractans illa verba : Qua non rapui tunc exolvebam (1), scribit, primos homi¬ nes rapere voluisse divinitatem, et perdi¬ disse felicitatem. Quod non ita accipiendum est, quasi voluerint mutare naturam, et ex hominibus Dii per essentiam fieri. Nam idem ipse Augustinus in plurimis locis explicat, superbiam primorum hominum in eo sitam fuisse, quod optaverint fieri Dii per imita- 13 tiouem, ct similitudinem, ut sicut Deus scit bonum et malum, nec eget aliquo rectore, et gubernatore, nec alicujus potestati subdi¬ tus est; ita ipsi scirent bonum, ct malum, nec Dei providentia indigerent, neque illius imperio et potestati subessent. Lib. ii. de Genesi contra Manichaeos, cap. 15: « Vide¬ mus, inquit, his verbis, per superbiam pec¬ catum esse persuasum. Ad hoc enim videt, quod dictum est, Eritis sicut Dii. Quid hic intelligitur, nisi persuasum esse, ut sub Deo esse nollent, sed in sua potestate potius sine domino, ut legem ejus non observarent, quasi invidentes sibi, ne se ipsi regerent, non indigentes illius interno lumine, sed utentes propria providentia, quasi oculis suis ad dig¬ noscendum bonum, et malum, quod ille pro¬ hibuisset. Hoc est ergo, quod persuasum est, ut suam potestatem nimis amarent ctc. » Tractat. -4. in epist. Joan. : « Contempsit Adam in paradiso positus praeceptum Dei, et erexit cervicem, veluti in potestate sua esse cu¬ piens, et nolens subdi potestati Dei. » Idem docet in Enchirid. cap. ii lib. vm de Genesi ad litteram, cap. 13. et lib. xi. cap. 30. et lib. xiv. de civitat. Dei, cap. 13. quae loca capite superiore citavimus. Porro initium hujus superbiae potuit esse, ac fuit in homine sine ullo prEccedente errore per solam incogitantiam, sive inconsidera- tionem : Non enim coepit superbia hominum ab illo actu, Nolo esse sub Dei potestate, sed post audita verba diaboli : Eritis sicut Dii scientes bonum et malum (quae verba mulier ab ipso diabolo, vir a muliere audivit, sicut e contrario, praeceptum Dei vir ab ipso Deo, mulier a viro audierat, teste Augustino lib. xi. de Genesi cap. 31.) volvere coeperunt intra se, pulchrum esse non pendere ab alio, ct simul coeperunt delectari propria potesta¬ te, eamque appetere, ac vehementer placere sibi; et occupati ejusmodi cogitatione, de¬ lectatione, ac desiderio, non erexerunt ani¬ mum ad Deum, neque cogitaverunt, id ne¬ que fieri posse, neque sibi expedire, atque ita paulatim ad se magis, ac magis conversi, et a Deo aversi cajcutire coeperunt, et fidem habere verbis Satanae, et Dei, praeceptum, minasque contemnere. Sic enim (ut docet Augustinus lib. xiv de civit. Dei cap. 28.) gradatim pergitur in via iniquitatis ab amore sui usque ad contemptum Dei, quemadmo¬ dum in via justitiae ab amore Dei, usque ad (l) Psal. LXVIII, 5. Tom. V. 21 3U LIRER m. contemptum sui. Itaque simile videtur fuisse peccatum primum hominum primorum ei peccato, quod a Theologis dicitur delectatio morosa. Neque enim qui circa pecunias, aut dignitates, aut voluptates delectationem mo¬ rosam habent, statuunt furtis, ambitioni, aut fornicationi operam dare, neque cogi¬ tant, fieri ne possit an non, quod animo vol¬ vunt, sed solum ea cogitatione delectantur, ac si res ipsa praesto esset, et peccatum non imaginatione, sed opere patraretur.