Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 4: The same is proved from other testimonies of the divine Scripture
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book IV. 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).
Besides the place of the Apostle already explained, there are many other things in the Scriptures of both testaments, of which we shall adduce the principal.
The first place is in the book of Job, chapter 14, which St. Augustine and the other Fathers everywhere are wont to allege from the version of the Seventy interpreters, in these words: No one is clean from filth, not even an infant whose life is of one day upon the earth; and the Greek words answer to this. In the Hebrew codex the same sense is found without difficulty. For thus we read words which sound thus: Who will give a clean thing from an unclean? not one (clean, namely, is there), even if his days be short. Our interpreter rendered thus: Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? is it not thou who only art? The days of man are short. Which reading, though it adds something to the Hebrew words by way of paraphrase, yet as to the sentence agrees excellently with the Hebrew text itself, especially as it is now written and pointed. For that word properly signifies “from an unclean,” to which our interpreter, for the sake of explaining, adjoined “seed”; but the Seventy either took the unclean for uncleanness, or read otherwise; and that word our interpreter took by way of interrogation, and therefore rendered, “is it not thou who only (or alone) art?” But the Seventy interpreted by way of denial, and therefore said, “but not one.” So also our interpreter joined that phrase, “his days are short,” with the following verse, as the Hebrews also join it, who begin there not only a new verse but even a new chapter, and therefore rendered: The days of man are short, the number of his months is with thee. But the Seventy joined those words with the preceding, and therefore rendered: even if his life be one day. And so the Hebrew words can bear both versions, both our Latin vulgate and that of the seventy men. And since ours has been approved by an ecumenical Council, and that one has been celebrated, as to this place, by almost all the ancients, neither is to be despised. And indeed, according to our edition, the argument for original sin is taken from this: that if God alone can cleanse a man conceived of unclean seed, it follows that the same man is unclean from his very conception. For none need to be cleansed but the unclean. Now this uncleanness is without doubt not corporal, but spiritual; for from corporal uncleanness a man can be cleansed even by a man. Finally, in the Scriptures uncleanness is taken for sin. Isaias 64: We are all become as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman. And Zacharias 3: Take away the filthy garments from him. And he said to him: Behold I have taken away thy iniquity. Further, according to the edition of the Seventy interpreters the testimony is yet more illustrious. For if an infant of one day is not clean from filth, assuredly a certain sin inheres in us all from conception itself.
The second testimony is had in Psalm 50, in those words: For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. Where, in the first place, it is to be known that it does not hinder the argument for the sin of origin that man is said to be conceived “in sins,” in the plural number, whereas the sin of origin is one, not many. For in very truth in the Hebrew fountain the number is singular; and therefore St. Jerome, and almost all others, rendered “in iniquity” and “in sin.” Add also, from St. Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapters 44 and 45, that original sin can be signified by the name of sins and iniquities: both because the figure of intellection is not unusual in the Scriptures and in profane authors, by which the plural number is put for the singular, and contrariwise the singular for the plural; and because in that first sin of Adam, which is contracted by his posterity through generation, there were many iniquities — pride, infidelity, disobedience, and others. Next, this is to be observed: that this place cannot be depraved by the adversaries, as though sin in this testimony were taken improperly — that is, for mortality, or some disease; for those Hebrew words properly signify true sin, and the same words are repeated rather often in the same Psalm, and are always taken for true and properly-so-called sin, such as was the adultery of David with Bethsabee, which is chiefly deplored in that Psalm. Lastly, it is not lawful to twist this confession of David to the sins of the parents who begot him, as though he had wished to say that his parents sinned when they begot him. For first, it is agreed well enough that David was born not of fornication or adultery, but of honest and holy wedlock. Next, since David in this whole Psalm is gathering arguments by which to bend the divine mercy to himself, he ought not to have alleged the sins of his parents, but to set forth his own misery; and this is what he does, when he says that he was wretched from his very conception. Moreover, that Hebrew verb is not referred to the action of begetting, in which sin is wont to be when parents sin in begetting, but to the formation of the body, which is done by God after the parents' intercourse. For truly and wisely said that holy mother of the Machabee martyrs: I know not how you were formed in my womb: for I neither gave you breath, nor soul, nor life, neither did I frame the limbs of every one of you. But the Creator of the world, that formed the nativity of man, and that found out the origin of all, etc. — in book 2 of Machabees, chapter 7. So also that other word properly signifies not to beget or to conceive, but to warm and cherish; hence it is referred to that time in which the mother cherishes in the womb the offspring already formed and ensouled, and by cherishing warms it. But it is certain that no sin of the parents intervenes either when the conceived offspring is formed, or when, already formed, it is cherished in the womb. And perhaps, to take away the calumnies of the heretics to come, the Holy Ghost would not use in this place the words which properly signify to beget or to conceive.
Now from the new testament we have first those words of the Precursor of the Lord, John 1: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. In which place, in the Greek text, it is read in the singular number, τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου — Behold him who taketh away that sin of the world. And what is that sin of the world, but that common sin which through one man entered into this world, as we cited above from the Apostle?
Next we have that of John 3: He that believeth not the Son… the wrath of God abideth on him. Where St. Augustine notes, book 6 against Julian, chapter 12, that it is not said “the wrath of God shall come upon him,” but “abideth on him,” because it was already there before, and abides on all the sons of Adam, unless it be taken away through Christ.
Thirdly we have that of Romans 3: For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. For certainly, if all have sinned, the little ones are not excepted from sin. But the little ones by their own will have done nothing of good or evil, as the same Apostle says, Romans 9. Therefore all are said to have sinned because they are sons of him in whom all sinned, Romans 5.
Fourthly we have that comparison of Adam with Christ, of grace with sin, of resurrection with death, which the same Apostle makes in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15; from which comparison it is manifestly gathered that all who are born of Adam contract sin and the debt of eternal death, in the same way that all who are born again in Christ acquire the grace of justification and the pledge of a blessed resurrection.
Fifthly we have that distinguished reasoning of the Apostle in the later epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 5: If one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all. Where first the conditional consequence is set down — if one died for all, then all were dead; then it is absolutely assumed — Christ died for all; and it remains that we absolutely conclude: therefore all were dead. And blessed Paul speaks openly enough of the death of all — not so much corporal as spiritual. For he says that Christ died that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto God. And a little after, more clearly, what he had said — that Christ died for us — he says: We have been reconciled to God through Christ. And a little after, most clearly, he says: Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us — that is, a victim for sin — that we might be made the justice of God in him. Since, then, it is agreed that Christ died for absolutely all of us, and was made a victim for sin, it follows that absolutely all, without any exception of condition, sex, or age, were dead in Adam, and needed a redeemer or justifier.
Sixthly we have that of Galatians 3: The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. For the sentence of this place is that Scripture demonstrates that all men are sinners, and cannot arrive at pardon except through Christ.
Seventhly we have that of Ephesians 2: We… were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. For we are called by nature children of wrath because from birth — or because from a nature vitiated by the sin of the first man — we draw the guilt of sin, from which we are liable to the divine wrath and vengeance. Some interpret that word, “by nature,” as if it had been said “utterly.” Which interpretation St. Jerome, in the commentary, does not reject; nay, he confesses the word to be ambiguous, though he himself follows the former exposition. But St. Augustine, book 6 against Julian, chapter 4 [al. 24], judged that interpretation worthy of a graver censure. For thus he says: “But as to what thou sayest — that where the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath, it can be understood, utterly children of wrath — oughtest thou not hence to have been admonished that it is the ancient Catholic faith that is defended against you: since there is hardly found a Latin codex — unless it now begin to be emended by you, or rather changed into error — where ‘by nature’ is not written? Which assuredly the antiquity of the interpreters would have had to guard against, were not this also the antiquity of the faith, which your novelty has begun to resist.” Thus he — who, from this that all the Latin codices have “by nature,” rightly gathers that in this place the word is not ambiguous; since, if it were so, someone would have rendered “utterly,” someone “by nature”; but now all have rendered in the same way, because all understood this Apostolic testimony in the same way. And concerning the Scriptures let these places suffice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Cx\.PUT IY. Idem probatur ex aliis testimoniis Scri- plurce divinae. Praeter locum Apostoli jam explicatum, sunt alia multa in Scripturis utri usque te¬ stamenti, ex quibus nos praecipua adduce¬ mus. Primus locus est in lib. Job. cap 14. quem S. Augustinus, caeterique Patres passim allegare solent ex versione 70 interpretum, his verbis : Nemo mundus a sorde, nec infans, cujus est unius dici vita super terram, et re¬ spondent verba Graeca : Ti; y“P *«0apb; se-rai anc p jTrou ; «XX’ ouosi; sav xat at’ a r,u.spa 6 6to? «uTovi siu tvis v?;;. In codice Heebraico non dif¬ ficulter idem sensus invenitur. Sic enim le¬ gimus ; w D^snn-Bt* nns sebb mna ini ra quae verba- hoc sonant: Quis da¬ bit mundum ab immundo ? non unus (mundus videlicet est) etiamsi breves dies ejus. Inter¬ pres noster sic reddidit : Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine ? nonne tu qui solus es ? breves dies hominis sunt. Quae lectio, tametsi aliquid addit ad verba Hebraica per modum paraphrasis; ta¬ men quoad sententiam optime convenit cum ipso Haebraico textu, praesertim ut nunc scri¬ bitur et distinguitur. Nam illud SMSBM pro- .pric (ab immundo) vel (de immundo) signi¬ ficat, cui noster interpres explicandi gratia adjunxit, Semine: Septuaginta vero, aut ac¬ ceperunt immundum pro immunditia, aut legerunt E1SW2B pio S^B ; illud autem S5 noster interpres accepit per modum in¬ terrogantis, et ideo vertit, nonne tu qui solus sive unus es? (1) Rom. V, 12. 350 LIBElK IV. Septuaginta vero interpretati sunt per modum negantis, et idcirco dixerunt, Sed ne tinus. Sic etiam interpres noster illum, Breves dies ejus , conjunxit cum sequenti versu, ut conjungunt etiam Hebraei, qui inde incipiunt non solum novum versum, sed etiam novum caput, et ideo vertit : Breves dies hominis sunt, numerus mensium ejus apud te est. At septuaginta conjunxerunt ea verba cum pixecedentibus et ideo verterunt, etiamsi una dies sit vita ejus. Itaque utramque versionem, et nostram latinam vulgatam, et illam septuaginta vi¬ rorum verba Hebi-aica ferre possunt. Et cum nostra sit a Concilio cecumenico ap¬ probata, et illa ab omnibus pene veteribus, quod attinet ad hunc locum, celebrata, neu¬ tra contemnenda est. Et quidem juxta nostram editionem su¬ mitur argumentum pro peccato originali, ex eo quod si solus Deus potest mundare ho¬ minem de immundo conceptum semine, sequi¬ tur eumdem hominem ab ipsa conceptione es¬ se immundum. Non enim mundari egent, nisi immundi. Haec autem immunditia sine dubio non corporalis, sed spiritualis est : nam a corporali immunditia, mundari homo etiam ab homine potest. Denique in Scripturis immunditia pro peccato accipitur. Isai , lxiv. Facti sumus ut immundi omnes nos, et tamquam pannus menstruatae omnes justitia: nostrae, Et Zachariae m. Auferte vestimenta sordida ah eo, et dixit ad eum, ecce abstuli a te iniquitatem tuam (1). Porro juxta editionem Septuaginta interpretum testimonium est adhuc illustrius. Nam si non est mundus a corde infans unius dici, profecto peccatum quoddam omnibus nobis ab ipsr conceptio¬ ne inhaeret. Alterum testimonium habetur in Psal. l. in illis verbis : Fece in iniquitatibus con¬ ceptus sum , et in peccatis concepit me mater mea (3). Ubi primo loco sciendum est, non im¬ pedire argumentum pro peccato originis , quod in numero multitudinis dicatur homo concipi in peccatis, cum peccatum originis unum sit, non multa. Nam revera in Hebraico fonte numerus est singularis : ■'ss iDrvcm scnai inVrn jrwa ■jn et ideo S. Hiei’onymus, et alii fere omnes reddide¬ runt in iniquitate, et in peccato. Adde quoque ex S. Augustino in Enclxir. cap. 44. et 45. posse etiam peccatura originale significari nomine peccatorum et iniquitatum, tum quia non est inusitata in Scripturis, et in profanis auctoribus figura intellectionis, qua nume¬ rus multitudinis ponitur pro numero singu- lax*i, et contia numerus singulai-is pro nu- mei’0 multitudinis, tum quia in peccato illo primo Adami, quod a posteris genex-atione contrahitur, multae fuerunt iniquitates, su¬ perbia, infi delitas, inobedientia et alia;. Deinde illud est observandum non posse hunc locum depravari ab adversariis, quasi peccatum in hoc testimonio accipiatur im¬ proprie, id est, pro mortalitate, aut morbo aliquo, nam ea; voces 'JY1? et V.BH proprie verum peccatum significant, et eaedem voces in eodem Psalmo siepius repetuntur, et sem- per accipiuntur pro vero et proprie dicto peccato, quale fuit adulterium Davidis cum Bethsabea;, quod in eo Psalmo potissimum deploratur. Postremo non licet hanc Davidis confes¬ sionem detorquere ad peccata pai-entum, qui eum genuernnt, quasi dicei'e voluerit, paren¬ tes suos peccasse, cum genuerunt. Nam in primis satis constat, Davidem non ex forni¬ catione, vel adulterio, sed ex honesto, et sancto conjugio natum. Deinde cum David in toto hoc Psalmo argumenta conquirat, quibus divinam misericordiam ad se flectat, non debuit peccata ,parentum allegare, sed miseriam suam exponere. Et hoc est, quod faciat, cum se miserum ab ipsa conceptione fuisse dicit. Praeterea verbum ilud iniVlO non refertur ad actionem gignendi, in qua peccatum esse solet, quando parentes gig¬ nendo peccant, sed ad formationem corpo- ris, quae post parentum concubitum a Deo fit. Yere enim, ac sapienter dixit sancta illa Martyrum Machabaorum mater ; Nescio qualiter in utero meo apparuistis, neque enim ego spiritum, et animam donavi vobis, et vi¬ tam, et singula membra non ego ipsa compegi; sed enim mundi creator, qui formavit hominis nativitatem, quique omnium invenit originem etc. in lib. n. Machabaxorum cap. vix. (3) Sic etiam altera illa vox isrvcrp proprie non significat gignere, aut concipere, sed calefacere, et fovere. Proinde refertur ad il¬ lud tempus, quo foetum jam foi*matum, et animatum mater in utero fovet, et fovendo calefacit. Certum autem est nullum interve¬ nire parentum peccatum, vel cum proles concepta formatur, vel cum jam formata in (1) Isai. LNIV, 6 ; Zach. III 4. - (2) Psal. L, 7. - (3) II Mach. VII, 22. CAPUT IV. 341 utero confovetur. Et fortasse ad calumnias futurorum htereticorum tollendas, Spiritus sanctus noluit hoc loco uti vocabulis, quoe proprie significant gignere, vel concipere, qua; sunt 'i';*' et r.Tb Jam vero ex novo testamento habemus in primis verba illa Praecursoris Domini, Joan. i : Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tolllit peccata mundi (i). Quo loco in textu Graeco legitur in num. singulari ~/,v Sgaptlav vovi xosgo v,Ecce qui tollit peccatum illud mundi. Quod est au¬ tem peccatum illud mundi, nisi commune illud peccatum, quod per unum hominem in hunc mundum intravit, ut ex Apostolo su¬ pra citavimus ? Deinde habemus illud Joan. nr. Qui non credit in filium , ira Dei manet super eum (2). Ubi notat S. Augustinus lib. vi in Julianum cap. 12. non esse dictum, ira Dei veniet su¬ per eum, sed manet super cum, quia jam antea erat, et manet in omnibus filiis Adae, nisi per Christum tollatur. Tertio habemus illud Rom. m. Omnes pec¬ caverunt, et egent gloria Dei (3). Certe enim si omnes peccaverunt, non excipiuntur par¬ vuli a peccato. Parvuli autem propria volun¬ tate nihil boni, aut mali egerunt, ut idem Apostolus ait ad Rom. ix. Igitur omnes pec¬ casse dicuntur, quia filii illius sunt, in quo omnes peccaverunt, ad Rom. v. Quarto habemus comparationem illam Adami cum Christo, gratia; cum peccato, re¬ surrectionis cum morte, quam idem Aposto¬ lus facit in priore epist. ad Corinth. cap. 13. ex qua comparatione manifeste colligitur, ita omnes, qui ex Adamo nascuntur, peccatum et mortis aeternae debitum contrahere, sicut omnes, qui renascuntur in Christo, gratiam justificationis, et beata; resurrectionis pignus acquirunt. Quinto habemus insignem illam Apostoli ratiocinationem in epist. posteriore ad Co- vinth. cap. v : Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est , ergo omnes mortui sunt. Et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus (-4). Ubi primum condi- tionalis consecutio ponitur, si unus pro om- • ilibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. Deinde absolute assumitur, Christus pro om¬ nibus mortuus est. Relinquitur autem, ut absolute concludamus, ergo omnes mortui sunt. Et satis aperte loquitur B. Paulus de morte omnium, non tam corporali, quam spirituali. Dicit enim Christum mortuum esse, ut qui vivunt , jam non sibi vivant , sed Deo. Et paulo post clarius, quod dixerat, Christum pro nobis mortuum, dicit, Nos Deo per Chri¬ stum reconciliatos. Et paulo post clarissime, dicit : Eum qui peccatum non fecerat, pro no¬ bis peccatum, id est, hostiam pro peccato, factum , ut nos efficeremur justitia Dei in illo. Jam igitur cum constet, Christum pro nobis omnibus omnino mortuum, atque hostiam pro peccato factum esse , sequitur omnes omnino, sine ulla exceptione conditionis, sexus, retatis, mortuos esse in Adamo, et red¬ emptore, seu justificatore indiguisse. Sexto habemus illud Galat. m : Conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato, ut remissio per Christum daretur credentibus (3). Est enim sententia hujus loci, Scripturam demonstrare, omnes homines esse peccatores, nec posse nisi per Christum ad indulgentiam pervenire. Septimo, habemus illud Ephes. ii : Era¬ mus et nos natura filii irse , sicut elc. (6). Di¬ cimur enim natura filii ira;, quia a nativitate vel quia ex natura peccato pruni hominis vitiata, reatum peccati trahimus, ex quo ira;, atque vindicta; divina; obnoxii sumus. Aliqui interpretantur illud, natura, ac si dictum es¬ set prorsus. Quam interpretationem S. Hie¬ ronymus in commentario non rejicit, quin etiam fatetur, vocem esse ambiguam, tam¬ etsi priorem ipse expositionem sequitur. S. autem Augustinus lib. vi. in Julianum cap. 4. graviore censura eam interpretatio¬ nem dignam esse xensuit. Sic enim ait : « Quod autem dicis, ubi ait Apostolus, na¬ tura filii ira;, posse intelligi, prorsus filii ira;. Nonne hinc admoneri debuisti, antiquam contra vos defendi catholicam fidem : quia non fere invenitur Latinus codex, si non a vobis nunc incipiat emendari, vel potius in mendum mutari, ubi non, natura, sit scri¬ ptum ? Quod utique cavere debuit interpre¬ tum antiquitas, nisi etiam fidei haec esset antiquitas, cui coepit vestra resistere novi¬ tas. » Haec ille, qui ex eo, quod omnes codi¬ ces Latini habent, natura, recte colligit, hoc loco non esse vocem ambiguam, quoniam si ita esset, aliquis vertisset, prorsus, aliquis, natura, nunc autem omnes eodem modo , verterunt, quia omnes eodem modo testimo¬ nium hoc Apostolicum intellexerunt. Ac de Scripturis quidem haec loca sufficiant. (1) Joan. I, 21), 3G. — (2) Joan. III, 36. - (3) Rom. III, 23. — (4)11 Corint. V. 14, 15. - (5) Gal. III, 22. — (G) Eph. II, 3. UBER IV.