Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book III: On the Sin of the First Man
Chapter 6: That the first parents lost faith, and what their infidelity 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).
We have discoursed of the pride of the first men, which we showed to have been the beginning of the first sin, and at the same time explained what that pride was. Now we must briefly discourse of their infidelity, and at the same time explain in what they erred. For although we contend that the first sin of the first men was not infidelity, yet we do not deny that after the sin of pride they fell into infidelity — which is the common opinion of the Fathers.
Tertullian, in book 2 against Marcion, chapter 2: “Who,” says he, “will hesitate to pronounce that very sin of Adam a heresy, seeing he committed it by the choice of his own opinion rather than of the divine?” Ambrose, in epistle 33, book 5, writing to his sister Marcellina, brings in God speaking thus to Adam: “Thou perceivest thyself to be naked, because thou hast lost the good garments of faith.” Augustine, in the Enchiridion, chapter 45 [al. 43], enumerating the parts of the first sin, puts pride in the first place, infidelity in the second: “Sacrilege is there,” says he, “because he did not believe God.” Likewise book 14 of the City of God, chapter 17: “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.” Finally, book 1 against Julian, chapter 3, Augustine cites to the same opinion Olympius, a Spanish bishop. Prosper, in the response to the chapters of the Genoese, doubt 3: “What is it,” says he, “that he will not have faith alone to have been commanded to that same nature — which had not (Adam) lost it first, he would not lack all the other goods? For Adam, by believing the devil, did not believe God.” And below: “How should the faith lost in Adam be found in any of his sons, unless that same Spirit, who works all things in all, infused it?” The same, in the book against the Conferrer, chapter 19: “Adam lost faith,” says he, “lost continence, lost charity.” And chapter 21: “Iniquity drove out justice, pride destroyed humility, infidelity seized faith, captivity took away liberty.” St. Leo, sermon 4 on the Nativity of the Lord: “The first man,” says he, “rashly and unhappily believed the envious one and deceiver.” St. Fulgentius, book 2 On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, chapter 22: “The first man,” says he, “lost faith; and losing faith, he lost the divine protection; for it is written: he who believeth not God shall not be protected by him.”
But it can deservedly be asked what that is which the first men did not believe God. And concerning the woman there are two opinions. For some judge that she did not believe that death would follow if she tasted the fruit of the forbidden tree — nay rather that she believed God to have lied, and out of envy to have forbidden that fruit as most excellent and most useful. And in this sense they expound those words: “Why hath God commanded you…? No, you shall not die the death. 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.” So teaches Cyril, book 3 against Julian; Chrysostom, homily 16 on Genesis; Augustine, book 2 On Genesis against the Manichaeans, chapter 15 [al. 13]; Rupert, Rabanus, and very many others in the commentaries on chapter 3 of Genesis.
Others will have it that Eve believed that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had not been forbidden by God, and that she and her husband had not well understood the words of the Lord. And to this opinion they expound those words: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree, etc. — as if it were said: why should God have commanded that you keep your hand from the fruit of any tree, since all are good and salutary? There is no reason, then, why you should believe that you will die if you taste the tree of knowledge; for God knows that that tree is most useful, seeing it increases knowledge; and therefore, since he is good and takes care of you, he would never have forbidden you so good a thing. St. Augustine indicates this opinion, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 30, in these words: “I think that she (Eve) supposed that God had said, for the sake of some signification, If you shall eat, you shall die the death; and therefore she took of its fruit and ate, and gave also to her husband.” The same Epiphanius insinuates, on the heresy of the Cainites, which is the 38th, where he says that the devil, in order to seduce the woman, feigned himself a friend of God: “The devil,” says he, “through lying deceived Eve and Adam, saying one thing for another, and demonstrating friendship with the Creator.” He did not, then, wish to make God a liar and envious, if he demonstrated friendship with him. To the same opinion not a little favors that the Apostle, 2 Corinthians 11, compares the seduction of Eve by the serpent with the seduction of the Corinthians by the false apostles. For neither did those openly calumniate God; but, transfiguring themselves into Apostles of Christ, they made a pretext of the honor of God and the true Gospel of Christ. It also favors the same opinion that the woman did not hear the precept from God immediately, but received it through Adam, as St. Augustine teaches, book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 34, and Ambrose, On the Instruction of a Virgin, chapter 4; for hence it was easy to persuade her either that the precept had not been given, or that it was not to be taken as Adam had told her. Finally, the Hebrew text favors this exposition: since that word which our interpreter renders “why” would more literally be rendered by the particle “is it true that,” or “even that” — so that the sense is: is it true that God hath commanded you that you should not eat of every tree? — where we see a doubt insinuated about the precept itself, whether it was given by God or not. It is added that, according to this explication, the seduction of the woman and the cunning of the serpent appear more clearly. For one is seduced when something false is persuaded to him under the appearance of truth; but to a just and innocent woman it could not at first sight seem likely that God is envious and a liar; whereas that she had not well understood the words of God could seem plainly credible. We have an example in the heretics, who studiously imitate Satan in seducing the faithful; for the Calvinians do not say that Christ lied when, the bread being taken in his hands, he said: This is my body — for if they said this they would seduce no one, but would be repelled by all as blasphemous and impious; but they say that the words of Christ are not rightly understood by the Catholics, and are to be taken with a trope which by the Catholics are taken without a trope. And similarly do all the other heretics, who contend not that God is a liar, but that the Catholics are unskilled; and by this reasoning they impose on many. This latter opinion much approves itself to me; yet, out of reverence for the most grave authors who follow the former, I dare not so prefer this latter to that former as not to judge that it too is to be received as probable. And so much for the infidelity of the woman.
Concerning the man — that is, Adam — the question is smaller. For, blessed Paul being witness, in the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 2: Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. And in the sacred history itself we read that the woman said, Genesis 3: The serpent deceived me; but that the man did not say that he had been seduced, but that he had eaten the fruit brought to him by the woman. Wherefore, whether the devil wished to persuade that God is envious and a liar, or that the precept about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not to be taken properly, but with some trope — this the woman believed, and thereby, being seduced, was in the transgression; but the man did not believe it, nor was seduced, but erred by another reasoning: namely (as St. Augustine teaches in many places), he judged that it would be venial if, against the precept of God, he ate of that fruit, lest he sadden his companion, and her his only one. In this too he erred: that, when he saw that his wife, having eaten that food, was not dead, he persuaded himself that he also would not die if he ate the same food. But because he was bound to believe the word of God, by which it had been said — In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death — therefore the Fathers rightly say that Adam did not believe God, and was made unfaithful, or, as Tertullian speaks, a heretic. Finally, both from the preceding elation and from the experience he had had, he began to doubt whether perchance that was true which the devil had said, You shall be as Gods; for God would not have said ironically, Behold Adam is become as one of us, unless Adam had in some manner believed that he would be as God by eating that food; and this was to have faith in the devil, and not to have it in God.
But let us hear Augustine, book 14 of the City of God, chapter 11: “Unexperienced in the divine severity, (Adam) could be deceived in this: that he believed the deed to be venial.” And in the same book, chapter 13: “Either she would believe the serpent to have spoken true, or he would prefer the will of his wife to the command of God, and would think himself a venial transgressor of the precept, if he did not desert the companion of his life even in the companionship of sinning.” And book 11 On Genesis to the Letter, chapter 30: “She gave to her husband, perhaps with a persuading word, which Scripture, keeping silence, left to be understood. Or perhaps there was now no need of persuading the man, when he perceived that she was not dead of that food?” And in the same book, the last chapter, after he had said that Adam ate the forbidden fruit lest he should sadden his spouse, he subjoins: “Therefore in some other manner he also was deceived; but by that serpentine guile with which the woman was seduced, I think he could in no way have been seduced in the manner in which she could. Now the Apostle properly called this a seduction, because that which was persuaded, though it was false, was thought to be true.” And below: “But even if some desire of making trial solicited the man, on account of some elation of mind which could not lie hidden from God the searcher of things interior, when he saw that the woman, having taken that food, was not dead — according to the things which we treated above — yet I do not think that he, if he was already endowed with a spiritual mind, could in any way have believed that God had forbidden them the food of that tree out of envy.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Primos parentes amisisse fidem, et qim fuerit eorum infidelitas. Disseruimus de superbia primorum homi¬ num, quam ostendimus fuisse principium primi peccati et simul explicuimus queenam superbia fuerit. Nunc de infidelitate eorum- dem breviter disserendum erit, et simul ex¬ plicandum, in quo erraverint Nam etiamsi contendimus, primum peccatum primorum hominum non fuisse infidelitatem, non tamen negamus, eos post superbiae peccatum inci¬ disse in infidelitatem, quae est communis Pa¬ trum sententia. Tertullianus in n. lib. adversus Marcio- nem cap. 2 : « Quis, inquit, dubitabit, ip¬ sum illud Adae delictum haeresim pronun¬ tiare ; quod per electionem suae potius, quam divinae sententiae admisit?» Ambro¬ sius in epist. 33. lib. v. ad Marcellinam soro¬ rem scribens, inducit Deum ita loquentem ad Adamum : « Agnoscis esse te nudum, quia bona indumenta fidei perdidisti. » Au¬ gustinus in Enchirid. cap. 43. enumerans partes primi peccati, primo loco ponit super¬ biam, secundo infidelitatem : « Sacrilegium, inquit, illic est, quia Deo non credidit. » Item lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 17. « IIoc itaque cognoverunt, quod felicius ignora¬ rent, si Deo credentes, et obedientes non committerent, quod eos cogeret experiri in¬ fidelitas, et inobedientia quid nocerent. » De¬ nique lib. I. adversus Julianum cap. 3. citat Augustinus in eamdem sententiam Olym¬ pium Episcopum Hispanum. Prosperin responsione adcapitulaGenuen- sium, dubio 3. « Quid est, inquit, quod ei¬ dem naturae solam fidem non vult esse prre- ceptam, quam nisi primam (Adam) amisisset, eniteris bonis omnibus non careret? Cre¬ dendo enim Adam diabolo, non credidit Deo. » Et infra : « Quomodo fides in Adam perdita, in quoquam filiorum ejus invenire¬ tur, nisi eam idem spiritus, qui omnia in om¬ nia in omnibus operatur infunderet ? » Idem in libro contra Collatorem, cap. 19 : « Perdi¬ dit, inquit, Adam fidem, perdidit continen¬ tiam, perdidit charitatem. » Et cap. 21 : « Justitiam iniquitas depulit, humilitatem superbia destruxit, infidelitas rapuit fidem, captivitas abstulit libertatem. » S. Leo serm. 4. de Nativitate Domini : « Homo primus, inquit, invido, et deceptori temere, atque infeliciter credidit. » S. Ful¬ gentius lib. ii. de incarnatione, et gratia Christi cap. 22. « Primus, inquit, homo per¬ didit fidem, perdens autem fidem, perdidit divinam protectionem, scriptum est enim, qui non credit Deo, non protegetur ab eo. » Sed merito quaeri potest, quid illud sit, quod primi homines Deo eon crediderint. Ac de fcemina quidem duae sunt opiniones, quidam enim existimant, eam non credi¬ disse, mortem subsecuturaun, si fructum ar- borie vetitae degustaret, quin potius credi¬ disse, Deum esse mentitum, et ex invidentia prohibuisse fructum illum optimum, et uti¬ lissimum. Et in hunc sensum exponunt ver¬ ba illa : « Cur praecepit vobis Deus, Et ne¬ quaquam morierimi. Scit enim Deus -quod quacumque die comederitis; aperientur oculi vestri, et eritis sicut Dii scientes bonum et malum. » Ita docet Cyrillus lib. m. in Ju¬ lianum. Chrysostomus hom. 16. in Genes. Augustinus lib. ii de Genesi contra Mani¬ chaeos cap. 13. Rupertus, Rabanus, et alii permulti in comment. cap. m. Genes. Alii volunt Evam credidisse, non fuisse a Deo prohibitum fructum ligni scientiae boni et mali : seque ac virum suum non bene in¬ tellexisse verba Domini. Atque in hanc sen¬ tentiam exponunt verba illa : Cur prsecepit vobis Deus , ut non ederetis de omni ligno etc. Ac si dictum esset, cur praecepisset Deus, ut a fructu alicujus arboris manu abstineretis, cum omnes sint bonae et salutares ? Non est igitur cur credatis vos morituros, si lignum scientiae gustaveritis, scit enim Deus eam arborem utilissimam esse, quippe quae scien¬ tiam augeat, et ideo cum bonus sit, et vestri curam gerat, nunquam rem tam bonam vo¬ bis prohibuisset. Indicat hanc sententiam S. Augustinus lib. xi,- de Genesi ad litteram, CAPUT VI. cap. 30. his verbis : «Arbitror quod putaverit (Eva) Deum alicujus significationis causa dixisse, si manducaveritis morte moriemini, atque ideo sumpsit de fructu ejus, et man¬ ducavit, et dedit etiam viro suo. » Eamdem insinuat Epiphanius haeresi Caianorum, quae est 38. ubi dicit, diabolum, ut mulierem se¬ duceret, simulasse se amicum Dei : « Diabo¬ lus, inquit, per mendacium decepit Evam, et Adam, alia pro aliis dicens, et amicitiam cum creatore demonstrans. » Non igitur Deum mendacem, et invidum facere voluit, si amicitiam cum illo demonstravit. Eidem sententiae non parum favet quod Apostolus II Corinth. xi, comparat seductio¬ nem Evae per serpentem cum seductione Corinthiorum per Pseudoapostolos. Neque enim illi aperte Deum calumniabantur, sed' transfigurantes se in Apostolos Christi, prae¬ texebant honorem Dei , et verum Christi Evangelium. Favet quoque eidem sententiae, quod mulier non audierit a Deo immediate praeceptum, sed per Adamum illud accepe¬ rit, ut S. August. docet lib. xi. de Genesi ad littei’am, cap. 34. et Ambrosius de Institut. Virginis cap. 4. hinc enim facile fuit illi per¬ suadere, aut praeceptum non esse datum, aut non esse sic accipiendum, ut Adam illi dixe¬ rat. Favet denique huic expositioni textus Hebraicus, siquidem illa vox BS03 quam nos¬ ter interpres vertit, cur, magis ad verbum redderetur per particulam, vere quod , aut, etiam quod , ut sensus sit, estne verum, quod Deus praeceperit vobis, ne de omni ligno comederetis ? ubi videmus insinuari dubita¬ tionem de ipso praecepto, datum ne fuerit a Deo, an non. Accedit, quod secundum hanc explicatio¬ nem clarius apparet seductio mulieris, et astutia serpentis. Nam seducitur quis, cum ei persuadetur aliquid falsum sub specie veri : at mulieri justae, et innocenti Deum esse invidum, et mendacem, non potuit pri¬ ma fronte verisimile videri ; se autem non bene intellexisse verba Dei, plane credibile videri potuit. Exemplum habemus in haereti¬ cis, qui Satanam in seducendis fidelibus stu¬ diose imitantur, neque enim Calviniani di¬ cunt, mentitum esse Christum cum, pane in manibus sumpto, ait : IIoc est corpus meum ; si enim hoc dicerent, neminem seducerent, sed ab omnibus ut blasphemi et impii repel¬ lerentur ; sed dicunt, a Catholicis non recte 313 intelligi verba Christi, et per tropum acci¬ pienda quae a Catholicis sine tropo accipiun¬ tur. Et similiter faciunt omnes alii haeretici, qui non Deum mendacem, sed Catholicos imperitos esse contendunt, et hac ratione multis imponunt. Haec sententia posterior mihi valde pro¬ batur ; tamen ob reverentiam gravissimorum auctorum, qui priorem sequuntur, non audeo hanc posteriorem ita priori illi anteponere, ut non illam etiam ut probabilem recipien¬ dam esse censeam. Atque haec de infidelitate mulieris. De viro, hoc est, Adamo, minor quaestio est. Nam teste B. Paulo in epist. I. ad Ti- mot. cap. 2 : Vir non est seductus, mulier au¬ tem seducta in prsevaricatione fuit (I). Et in ipsa sacra historia legimus dixisse mulierem Genes, iii : Serpens seduxit me (2). Virum autem non dixisse se fuisse seductum, sed comedisse pomum sibi a muliere allatum. Quare sive diabolus persuadere voluerit, Deum esse invidum et mendacem ; sive prae¬ ceptum de fructu ligni scientiae non edendo, non fuisse accipiendum proprie, sed cum aliquo tropo ; id mulier credidit, ac per hoc seducta in praevaricatione fuit : vir autem non credidit, nec seductus fuit, sed alia ra¬ tione erravit, nimirum (ut S. Augustinus multis in locis docet) existimavit veniale fore, si contra praeceptum Dei de fructu illo co¬ mederet, ne sociam, eamque unicam con¬ tristaret. In eo quoque erravit, quod cum videret, uxorem manducato cibo illo non es¬ se mortuam, sibi ip^-e persuasit, se quoque non moriturum, si cibum eumdem manduca¬ ret. Quia vero credere tenebatur verbo Dei, quo dictum fuerat : Quocumque die comede¬ ris ex eo morte morieris, ideo Patres recte dicunt, Adamum Deo non credidisse, et in¬ fidelem, vel ut Tertullianus [loquitur, haere¬ ticum esse factum. Denique tum ex praecedente elatione, tum ex habita experientia dubitare coepit, an forte verum esset quod diabolus dixerat, eritis si¬ cut Dii ; non enim Deus ironice dixisset : Ecce Adam sicut unus ex nobis factus est, nisi Adam aliquo modo credidisset se futu¬ rum sicut Deum cibum illum comedendo : hoc autem erat fidem habere diabolo, et non habere Deo. Sed Augustinum audiamus lib. xiv. de civit. Dei, cap. 41 : « Inexpertus, inquit, di¬ ti) ITira. II, 14. - (2) Gen. III, 13. LIBER III. vina; severitatis (Atiam) in eo falli potuit ut veniale crederet esse commissum. » Et lib. eodem cap. 13 : « Vel, inquit, illa crederet verum dixisse serpentem, vel ille Dei man¬ dato uxoris pr;e poneret voluntatem, putaret- que se venialitcr transgressorem esse prae¬ cepti, si vita; sute sociam non desereret etiam in societate peccandi. » Et lib. xi. de Genesi ad litteram, c. 30 : « Dedit, inquit, viro suo fortasse cum verbo suasorio, quod Scriptura tacens intelligendum reliquit. An forte nec suaderi jam opus erat viro, quando illam eo cibo mortuam non osse cernebat ? » Et lib. eodem cap. ult., posteaquanr dixerat, Ada- muin comedisse fructum vetitum, ne conju¬ gem contristaret, subjungit : « Ergo alio quodam modo etiam ipse deceptus est, sed dolo illo serpentino, quo mulier seducta est, nullo modo illum arbitror potuisse seduci in illo modo, quo illa potuit. Hanc autem pro¬ prie seductionem appellavit Apostolus, quia id quod suadebatur, cum falsum esset, ve¬ rum esse putatum est. » Et infra : « Sed etiamsi virum propter aliquam mentis ela¬ tionem, quae Deum internorum scrutatorem latere non potuit, sollicitavit aliqua expe-' rien di cupiditas, cum mulierem videret ac¬ cepta illa esca non esse mortuam, secundum ea, qua; superius tractavimus, non tamen eum arbitror, si jam spiritali mente praeditus erat, ullo modo credere potuisse, quod eos Deus ab esca illius ligni invidendo prohibuis¬ set. »