Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 7: The same matter is confirmed by reasons
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).
But let there come, last, reasons also, drawn from various principles. The first reason is drawn from Baptism — and it is utterly invincible and insoluble, and the ancients everywhere used it. Infants are to be baptized immediately, if there be danger lest they die at that age, as St. Dionysius teaches from Apostolic tradition, in the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the last chapter; Origen, homily 8 on Leviticus; blessed Cyprian, book 3, epistle 8; St. Jerome, book 3 against the Pelagians, at the end; St. Augustine, book 4 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 24. Nor have the Pelagians, or Zwingli, or Erasmus denied this; and there has always been in the Church this solicitude of the faithful: to provide most diligently that no one at all, whether adult or infant, should depart without Baptism — as is plain from the epistle of Siricius to Himerius, cited above, chapter 2, and from epistle 28 of St. Augustine to St. Jerome. And besides the Apostolic tradition we have the written word itself, which that tradition has explained to us more clearly: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3.
Now it is certain that Baptism is given for the remission of sin. For they who are baptized are born again of water and the Holy Ghost, John 3. But why must he be born again through grace, whose generation was not corrupted through sin? Likewise, they who are baptized die to sin and rise again, that they may walk in newness of life, Romans 6. But how can he die to sin who has no sin? Again, they who are baptized are cleansed and washed. Ephesians 5: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Titus 3: By the laver of regeneration and renovation, etc. Acts 22: Wash away thy sins, invoking his name. But how can it be that he be cleansed and washed who has no filth or stains? Finally, the form of Baptism shows the same. For whether by the form we understand those words — I baptize thee, etc. — or that external symbol which is the similitude of the internal thing, the form of Baptism will be false, as the alleged Councils testify, if Baptism is not given unto the remission of sins. For what is “I baptize thee” but “I wash thee,” or “I cleanse thee,” according to the Scriptures defining Baptism as the laver of regeneration, by which we are cleansed in the word of life? And what does that external symbol signify, by which we are plunged into the water and emerge from the water, but (as the Apostle himself teaches, Romans 6) that we die to sin, that we may rise again to justice? Wherefore it cannot be doubted that infants — for whom Baptism has been shown to be necessary from the word of Christ and from Apostolic tradition — have a sin which they have brought with them from the mother's womb.
The second reason is drawn from the most ancient ceremonies of Baptism, celebrated in the universal Church — the exorcism, namely, and the exsufflation. Which argument St. Augustine uses everywhere, as in book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 34; book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 20; and book 6 against Julian, chapter 2 [al. 5]; Pope Celestine also uses it, in the epistle to the Gauls, and other later writers. For the Pelagians neither could nor dared reprehend the usage of the universal Church, by which, through exorcism and exsufflation, the unclean spirit is driven from the infants to be baptized. For thus writes Augustine, book 6 against Julian, chapter 2: “This thou wast afraid to mention, as though thou thyself wouldst have to be exsufflated by the whole world, if thou hadst wished to contradict this exsufflation by which the prince of the world is cast out from the little ones.” But if the unclean spirit possesses infants before Baptism, it cannot be denied that he holds them captive through sin. For God would not permit his creature to be possessed by the devil, unless it had first subjected itself to him through sin. For by whom one is overcome, of him also he is made the slave.
The third reason, from the mystery of circumcision. For circumcision, by the opinion of St. Augustine, book 16 of the City of God, chapter 27; St. Gregory, book 4 of the Morals, chapter 2 [al. 3]; St. Bernard, in epistle 77; and Innocent III, chapter Majores, On Baptism and its Effect, had been instituted for purging the sin of origin; and by the opinion of others, if not for taking away original sin, it was certainly referred to signifying its purgation. For it was for this reason commanded to be done in that member in which the effect of that sin appears more evidently, and through which the human race is carnally propagated, and by propagation infected. See Augustine, tractate 30 on John.
The fourth reason, from the punishment of sin. Death is the punishment of sin, as is agreed from what was said to the first parent: In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death, Genesis 2. But all die, and even the infants themselves, who by their own will have done nothing of good or evil; therefore there is in infants a certain sin which is not committed by their own will, but is drawn by propagation itself from the parents. Nor can it be answered that death was a punishment to Adam, but to his sons is not a punishment, but a misfortune and calamity — as when one, reduced to want through his own fault, begets poor sons: to himself indeed the want is the punishment of sin, but to the sons an unhappiness and misery. This, I say, cannot be answered. For God through Ezechiel testifies that he does not afflict sons for the faults of their parents. For thus we read, Ezechiel 18: What is the meaning that you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land of Israel, saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, the same shall die… the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son. Nor is that repugnant to this place which we read in Exodus, chapter 20: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation. For God punishes the sin of the fathers in the sons not always, but only then, when the sons imitate the sins of the fathers, as the holy Fathers teach: Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 18 of Ezechiel; Augustine, on Psalm 108, on those words, May the iniquity of his fathers return into memory, and in the book against Adimantus, chapter 7; Chrysostom, homily 29 on Genesis, treating that verse, Cursed be the boy Chanaan, and homily 75 on Matthew; Gregory, book 15 of the Morals, chapter 22; and Thomas, in 1-2, question 87, article 8 — whom almost all the more recent writers follow. And Scripture itself indicates this very thing when it says: of them that hate me; for God does not say simply that he will punish the sins of the fathers in the sons, but in those who hate him. And so the sons are not punished for the fathers as though the sins of the sons did not deserve that punishment, or as though they were punished more than they have deserved; but because, unless the sins of the parents had gone before, God would perhaps not have punished them in this world, as he did not punish their parents. Since, then, infants are not capable of reason, and thereby do not imitate the sins of their fathers, and yet are punished with the gravest punishment of all, which is temporal and eternal death, it follows necessarily that they have some other sin, for which they are justly punished; and this is what we call original. Wherefore St. Paul pronounces absolutely that death is the wages of sin, Romans 6; and that the sting of death is sin, 1 Corinthians 15. And in the book of Wisdom, chapter 12, we read: For so much then as thou art just, thou orderest all things justly: thinking it not agreeable to thy power, to condemn him who deserveth not to be punished. And Job, chapter 4: Who ever perished being innocent? or when were the just destroyed? Finally St. Augustine, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 9: “Every punishment,” says he, “if it is just, is the punishment of sin, and is named a penalty.”
The fifth reason, from the passion and death of the Lord. For the Lord suffered and died for the unjust. Isaias 53: If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed. Romans 5: Christ… died at the appointed time for the ungodly. 1 Peter 3: Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust. And he died for all, as the same Scripture testifies, 2 Corinthians 5: Christ died for all. 1 Timothy 2: Who gave himself a redemption for all. Therefore all are, or certainly were, unjust and sinners.
The sixth reason, from the parables and figures. For the hundredth sheep which strayed from the flock, and the lost groat, Luke 15, by the consent of all signified the universal human nature. He also who, in Luke 10, going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among robbers, and, stripped by them and left half-alive, lay in the way, without controversy designates the human race — which, stripped by Satan in the first parent of the garment of heavenly grace, and worn out with wounds, so lay that it could rightly be called half-alive, since there had been taken from the soul the life of grace, not the life of nature.
The seventh reason, from the diverse judgment and feeling of the saints and of the heathen concerning the birthdays of men. For the heathen, who were ignorant of the sin of origin, kept birthdays with great celebration — and above all kings and princes. Genesis 40: Pharao celebrated a solemn banquet on the day of his birth; the same does Herod, Matthew 14; the same is read everywhere in the histories of the gentiles. Contrariwise, the saints deplore their birthday on account of the corruption of their origin: Let the day perish wherein I was born, says Job, chapter 3; and Jeremias, chapter 20: Cursed be the day wherein I was born. Abraham also celebrated not the birthday of his son, but the day of his weaning, Genesis 21. Further, the Christian Church honors the natal days of the Saints with festive joys; but she calls those their natal days, not on which they are born with sin unto mortal life, but on which through temporal death they pass over to the blessed and immortal life. For she knows that precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his Saints, Psalm 115; and that blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, Apocalypse 14.
The eighth reason, from the antiquity of the Catholic opinion and the novelty of the contrary error. For one of the chief marks of heresy is if, after the Catholic faith has been preached and received and long cultivated, some new opinion arise which by its novelty disturbs the minds of the faithful long since accustomed to the contrary doctrine. That such was the doctrine of Pelagius, which denies original sin, St. Augustine testifies in these words, in book 3 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapters 6 and 7: “Whence this business has suddenly emerged upon us, I know not. For a short time ago, my ears were brushed in passing by certain men conversing casually, when we were there at Carthage — that little ones are not baptized in order to receive the remission of sins, but that they may be sanctified in Christ. Disturbed by this novelty, both because it was not opportune that I should say anything against it, and because they were not such men as whose authority I need be anxious about, I easily held this among things transacted and done away. And behold, it is now defended against the Church with blazing zeal; behold, it is even committed to memory by writing; behold, the matter is brought to this crisis, that we are even consulted by the brethren about it; behold, we are compelled to dispute and write against it.” Thus he — who in the same place testifies that in no writer before Pelagius could he ever read that men are born without original sin; nay rather, that this dogma about the sin of origin was so fixed and certain in the Church that from it other questions were solved. And in this our age also — the Pelagian heresy long since extinguished — Jacques Lefèvre and Zwingli, who have raised the same heresy from the dead, openly confess that their opinion is contrary to the doctrine of all the schools, and thereby new — or rather, as we have said, renewed.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Res eadem rationibus confirmatur. Sed accedant postremo etiam rationes, ex variis principiis ductae. Prima ratio ducitur ex Baptismo, eaque invicta prorsus et inso¬ lubilis, qua veteres passim usi sunt. Infantes continuo baptizandi sunt, si periculum sit, ne in ea aetate moriantur, ut ex Apostolica traditione docet S. Dionysius in lib. de Ec- clesiast. Hierarchiacap.ult. Origenes hom. 8. in Leviticum, B. Cyprianus lib. m. epist. 8. S. Hieronymus lib. 3. adversus Pelagianos extremo, S. Augustinus lib. iv. de Baptismo contraDonatistas, cap. 24. neque idPelagia- ni, Zwinglius, vel Erasmus negaverunt : et semper in Ecclesia fuit haec sollicitudo fi¬ delium, ut diligentissime providerent, ne quis omnino, sive adultus, sive infans abs¬ que Baptismo decederet, ut perspicuum est ex epistola Siricii, supra citata, ad Hime- rium cap. 2. et ex epist. 28. S. Augustini, ad S. Hieronymum. Et praeter Apostolicam traditionem habeitius verbum ipsum scri¬ ptum, quod ea traditio nobis explicuit cla¬ rius : Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua , et Spi¬ ritu sancto , non potest intrare in regnum Dei, Joao. hi (1). Certum autem est, Baptismum dari ad re¬ missionem peccati. Nam qui baptizantur, (I) Joan. III, 3. ToaT. V. 23 LIBER IV. aio renascutifur ex aqua , et Spiritu sancto , Joa». jil. Cur autem renasci debet per gratiam, cujus generatio corrupta non fuit per pecca¬ tum ? Item qui baptizantur, moriuntur peccato et resurgunt : Ut in novitate vitx ambulent , Rom. 6. Quomodo vero mori potest pecca¬ to, qui peccatum nullum habet? Rursus qui baptizantur, mundantur et lavantur. Ephes. v : Mundans lavacro aquae in verbo vi¬ tx. Tit. iii : Per lavacrum regenerationis , et renovationis etc. Actor, xxn : Ablue peccata tua invocato nomine ipsius. Qui autem fieri potest, 'ut mundetur, et lavetur, qui sordes, aut ma¬ culas nullas habet ? Denique idem ostendit forma Baptismi. Sive enim per forman intelligamus verba illa : Ego te baptizo etc., sive symbolum illud externum, quod est similitudo rei internae, falsa erit forma Baptismi, ut Concilia alle¬ gata testantur, si Baptismus non datur in remissionem peccatorum. Nam quid est : Ego te baptizo , nisi, ego te lavo, vel mundo juxta Scripturas definientes Baptismum, lavacrum regenerationis, quo mundamur in verbo vitae ? Quid vero significat symbolum illud externum, quo mergimur in aquam, e- mergimus ex aqua, nisi (ut Apostolus ipse docet, Roman. vi.) Morinos peccato , utresur- gamus justitix ? Quare dubitari non potest, quin infantes, quibus necessarium esse baptismum ex verbo Christi et Apostoliea traditione monstratum est, peccatum habeant quod secum ex utero matris adduxerint. Secunda ratio dicitur a caeremoniis Bapti- Bmi antiquissimis, et in Ecclesia universa celebratis exorcismo videlicet etexsufflatione. Quo argumento utitur passim S. Augustinus, ut lib. I. de peccatorum meritis et remission. cap. 34. lib. I. de nuptiis et concupiscentia, cap. 20 et lib. vi. in Julianum, cap. 2. utun¬ tur etiam Coelestinus Papa in epistol. ad Gal¬ los, et alii posteriores. Nam Pelagiani repre¬ hendere nec poterant, nec audebant usum universae Ecclesiae, quo per exorcismum, et exsufflationem ab infantibus baptizandis spi¬ ritus immundus abigituf. Sic enim scribit Augustinus lib. VI. in Julianum cap. 2 : « ld tu commemorare timuisti, tamquam ipse a toto orbe exsufflandus esses, si huic exsuf¬ flationi, qua princeps mundi a parvulis e^ici- ,tur foras, contradicere voluisses. » Quod si spiritus immundus infantes ante Baptismum possidet negari non potest, quin cos per pec¬ catum captivos teneat. Neque enim permitte¬ ret Deus creaturam suam a diabolo possi¬ deri, nisi sibi eam per peccatum ipse antea subjecisset. A quo enim quis superatur, ejus et servus efficitur. Tertia ratio ex circumcisionis mysterio. Circumcisio siquidem, ex sententia S. Au¬ gustini lib. xvi. de Civ. Dei cap. 27. S. Gre- gorii lib. iv Moralium cap. 2. S. Bernardiin epist. 77. et Innocentii III. cap. Majores, de Baptismo, et ejus effectu, ad peccatum ori¬ ginis purgandum instituta fuerat : ex alio¬ rum vero sententia, si non ad tollendum peccatum originale, certe ad significandam ejus purgationem referebatur. Nam ideo in eo membro fieri jussa est, in quo evidentius peccati illius effectus apparet, et per quod genus humanum carnaliter propagatur, et propagatione inficitur. Vide Augustinum tractat. 30. in Joannem. Quarta ratio ex poena peccati. Mors poena peccati est, ut ex eo constat, quod dictum est primo parenti : Quacumque die comede¬ ris ex eo , morte morieris , Genes, ii, Moriun¬ tur autem omnes, et ipsi etiam infantes, qui propria voluntate nihil egerunt boni vel ma¬ li, igitur pcGcatum quoddam infantibus inest, quod non committitur propria voluntate, sed ipsa propagatione a parentibus trahitur. Neque responderi potest, mortem fuisse poenam Adamo, filiis autem non esse poe¬ nam, sed infortunium et calamitatem, quem¬ admodum cum quis ob culpam suam ad inopiam redactus, filios pauperes gignit, ipsi quidem inopia poena peocatijest, filiis autem infelicitas et miseria. Hoc, inquac, responderi non potest. Nam Deus jjer Ezechielem testatur, se non affli¬ gere filios ob culpas parentum. Sic enim le¬ gimus Ezechielis xvm. Quid est, quod parabo¬ lam istam vertitis in proverbium in Israel, di¬ centes : Patres comederunt uvas acerbas, et dentes filiorum obstupescunt ? Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, si erit ultra vobis parabola hxc in proverbium in Israel : Eccc omnes animx mex sunt, ut anima patris , ita anima filii mea est : Anima qux peccaverit, ipsa morietur, filius non portabit iniquitatem patris , nec pater portabit iniquitatem filii. Neque huic loco repugnat quod legimus in (1) Rom VI, 4. - (2) Eph. V. 26; Tit III, 5; Act. XXII, 16. - (3) Rom. VI. - Gen. II, 17. - (4) Ezech. XVIII, 2. CAPUT vn. Exofl. cap. xx : Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus , fortis, zelotes visitans peccata patrum in filios in tertiamet quartam genera ionem (1). Nam Deus punit peccatum patrum in filiis non semper, sed tunc solum, cum filii imitantur peccata patrum, ut docent S. Patres, Hieronymus in comment. ad cap. 18. Ezechiel. Augusti¬ nus in Psal. cvm. in illa verba : In memoriam redeat iniquitas patrum ejus (2). Et in lib. cont. Adimantum cap. 7. Chrysostomus hom. 29. in Genesin, tractans illud : Maledictus puer Ckanaam, et hom. 75. in Matth. Gregor, lib. xv. moral. cap. 22. et Thomas in 1. 2. q. 87. art. 8. Quos sequuntur fere omnes re- centiores, et hoc ipsum indicat Scriptura, cum ait : His qui oderunt me; non enim sim¬ pliciter Deus dicit, se puniturum peccata pa¬ trum in filiis, sed in iis qui eum oderunt. Itaque non puniuntur filii pro patribus, quasi non mereantur eam poenam peccata filiorum, aut magis puniantur quam meriti sunt, sed quia nisi praecessissent peccata parentum, Deus eos fortasse non punivisset in hoc mundo, sicut parentes eorum non punivit. Cum igitur infantes non sint ratio¬ nis capaces, ac per hoc non imitentur pec¬ cata patrum, et tamen puniantur poena om¬ nium gravissima, qua) est mors temporalis, ct aeterna, sequitur necessario, ut habeant, aliquod aliud peccatum, ob quod juste pu¬ niantur, et hoc est, quod originale vocamus. Quocirca S. Paulus absolute pronuntiat, Mortem stipendium esse peccati , ad Rom. vi. et, Aculeum mortis esse peccatum I ad Co- rinth. xv. Et in lib. Sapientiae, cap. 12. le¬ gimus : Cum ergo justus, juste omnia disponis , ipsum quoque qui non debet puniri, condem¬ nare exterum aestimas a tua virtute . Et Job. cap. 4 : Quis unquam innocens periit ? gut quando recti deleti sunt ? (3) Denique S. Augu¬ stinus lib. i. retract. cap. 9: « Omnis, inquit, poena, si justa est, poena peccati est, et sup¬ plicium nominatur. » Quinta ratio ex passione et morte Domini. Dominus enim pro injustis passus et mortuus est, Isai. lui. Si posuerit pro peccato animam suam, videbit semen longaevum ad Roman. v. Christus secundum tempus pro impiis mortuus est 1 Petr. m. Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est , justus pro injustis Mortuus autem est pro omnibus, ut eadem 317 Scriptura testatur, II ad Corintli. v : Pro orn- , nibus mortuus est Christus. 1 ad Tiinoth. ii. Dedit redemptionem seipsum pro omnibus (4). Igitur omnes injusti et peccatores sunt, aut certe fuerunt. Sexta ratio ex parabolis et figuris. Nam ovis centesima, qua) aberravit a grege, et drachma perdita Luc. xv. omnium consensu naturam humanam universam significabant. Ille etiam, qui Luca) x. descendens ab Hie¬ rusalem in Hiericho indicit in latrones, atque ab eis spoliatus, et semivivus relictus, jacebat in via, sine controversia genus humanum designat, quod a Satana in primo parente gratiae cclestis indumento exutum, et plagis confectum, ita jacebat, ut semivivus recte dici posset, cum ablata esset anima) vita gra¬ tiae, non vita naturae. Septima ratio ex diverso judicio, et sensu sanctorum et ethnicorum in natalitiis homi¬ num. Siquidem ethnici, qui peccatum origi¬ nis ignorabant, magna celebritate colebant natales dies, ac potissimum Reges et Princi¬ pes. Genes, xl. Pharao celebrabat convivium solemne die natalitiorum suorum : idem facit Matth. xiv. Herodes idem passim legitur in historiis gentilium. Contra vero Sancti diem suum natalem ob originis corruptionem de¬ plorant : Pereat dies, in qua natus sum, inquit Job. cap. 3, et Hieremias c. 20 : Male¬ dicta dies, in qua natus sum (5). Abraham quoque filii sui non diem natalem, sed diem ablactationis celebravit, Genes. 21. Porro Ecclesia Christiana natalitia Sanctorum fe¬ stivis gaudiis recolit, sed ea natalitia vocat, non quibus cum peccato nascuntur ad vitam mortalem, sed quibus per temporalem mor¬ tem transeunt ad vitam beatam et immorta- talem. Scit enim pretiosam esse in conspectu Domini Sanctorum ejus mortem. Psal. cxv ; et, Beatos esse mortuos, qui in Domino mo¬ riuntur (6). Apocal. xiv. Odava ratio ex antiquitate sententiae Ca¬ tholicae, et novitate erroris contrarii. Una enim ex praecipuis notis haereseos est, si post fidem Catholicam praedicatam et receptam et longo tempore cultam, nova aliqua opinio exoriatur, quae novitate sua perturbet ani: mos fidelium assuetos jam dudum contrariae doctrinae. Talem fuisse doctrinam Pelagii, qilae negat originale peccatum, testatur his (1) Exo. X, 5. - (2) Psal. CVM, 14. — (3) Rora. VI, 23; I Corin. XV, 56; Sap XII, 15; Job. IV, 7. — (4) Isai. LIII, 10; Rom. V, 6 ; I Pet. III, 18; II Corin. V, 15; I Timot. II. G. — (5) Job. III, 3. Hier. XV, 14. — (6) Psal. CXV, 15; Ap. XIV, 13. 348 LIBER IV. verbis S. Augustinus in lib. m. de peccat, raerit. etrem.c.6. et 7.« Unde nobis hoc nego¬ tium repente emerserit, nescio. Nam ante parvum tempus a quibusdam transitorie col- loquentibus, cursim mihi aures perstricta; sunt, cum illic apud Carthaginem essemus, non ideo parvulos baptizari, ut remissionem accipiant peccatorum, sed ut sanctificentur in Christo. Qua novitate permotus, et quia opportunum non fuit, ut contra aliquid di¬ cerem, et non tales homines erant, de quo¬ rum essem auctoritate sollicitus, facile hoc in transactis, atque abolitis habui. Et ecce contra Ecclesiam jam studio flammante de¬ fenditur, ecce scribendo etiam memoriae commendatur, ecce res in hoc discriminis adducitur, ut hinc etiam a fratribus consula¬ mur, ecce coutra disputare, et scribere cogi¬ mur. » IIa;c ille, qui in eodem loco testatur se apud nullum scriptorem ante Pelagium unquam legere potuisse, homines nasci sine peccato originali. Quin etiam adeo fuisse hoc dogma de peccato originis in Ecclesia fixum ac certum, ut ex eo qua;stiones alia; solveren¬ tur. Hoc etiam nostro sacculo Pelagiana hsere- si jamdudum extincta, Jacobus Faber, et Zwinglius, qui eamdem haeresim ab inferis excitarunt, aperte fatentur, sententiam suam esse contrariam doctrinae, omnium scholarum ac per hoc novam, sive potius, ut diximus, renovatam.