Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 4: The second error, which is of many Lutherans, is set forth and refuted
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book V. 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).
The error of Illyricus being exploded, it follows that we come to the opinion of the other heretics of this time. And indeed, at first sight both the Lutherans and the Calvinists seem to disagree neither among themselves nor from the Church. For of the adversaries, Philip, both in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, article 2, and in the Commonplaces, under the title On Original Sin, and John Calvin, in book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 1, admit the common definition of original sin: namely, that it is the privation of original justice. Martin Bucer also, on the epistle to the Romans, testifies that he does not see in what the Scholastics, as to the sin of origin, vary from the orthodox opinion. And of our men, John Hoffmeister, in the judgment on article 2 of the Augsburg Confession, and Alphonsus Virvés, in the third Philippic, acknowledge scarcely any dissension in this article between us and the sectaries. Yet, if the whole matter be diligently weighed, two things will be found in the doctrine of the adversaries which are very far distant from the true and sound doctrine of the Catholics. The one is that very many of them do not distinguish the sin of origin from actual sin. The other, that those things which the Catholics will have to be wounds of nature, weaknesses, diseases left from original sin — as ignorance, difficulty, concupiscence — they will have to be truly and properly the sin of origin, and to remain in all who are justified through Christ in such a way that of its nature it could damn men, if God willed to impute it. But let us set forth the former error, and briefly refute it.
The former error, then, stands in Luther, in the assertion of the third article, where he says that it is impossible that the tinder be without actual sin. And above, in the assertion of the second article, he had already said that the tinder, or concupiscence, is original sin. Again, in the assertion of the same third article: “I omit to say,” says he, “that original sin, as it is all sins, so is also unbelief.” The same Luther also, in the commentary on chapter 3 of Genesis, says that original sin is unbelief, despair, and other like things, which without doubt are actual sins. The same, in the assertion of the same third article, says that the tinder is a living thing, and one that moves; and at length adds these words: “Therefore the tinder truly is actual sin.” Now Philip Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces put forth in the year 1521, under the title What Is Sin, says thus: “Original sin is an inborn propensity, and a certain congenital impetus and energy by which we are drawn to sinning, propagated from Adam into all posterity.” And a little after: “Scripture does not call this original, that actual sin. For original sin also is plainly a certain actual depraved cupidity.” The same Philip, when in the Augsburg Confession, article 2, he had laid down that original sin is that men are without fear and trust of God, and the Catholics, in the refutation of the Confession which stands in Fabricius of Liège, in the Harmony of the Augsburg Confession, had objected that to be without fear and trust of God are actual sins — he answered nothing else in the Apology than by alleging the German Confession, in which not only the acts, but also the propensity and the gifts of God for effecting fear and trust, are denied to men born in sin. And so he did not deny that actual sins pertain to original sin, but adds something further. The same, also in the same Apology, says that the sin of origin is extenuated by the Scholastics, and among other things speaks thus: “And so, when they speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention the graver vices of human nature — namely, ignorance of God, contempt of God, to be without fear and trust of God, to hate the judgment of God, to flee God judging, to be angry with God, to despair of grace, to have trust in present things,” etc. So also in the Commonplaces put forth after the year 1540 he does not indeed say openly that the sin of origin is an actual cupidity, as he had said before; yet, explaining what concupiscence is, or the disorder (as he speaks) of all the powers, in which he constitutes the notion of the sin of origin, he says that to it pertain ignorance of God, doubtings, to be without fear, without love, to love oneself more than God, etc. But assuredly it cannot be denied that contempt of God, hatred of the divine judgment, to be angry with God, to flee God judging, to despair of grace, to doubt of the mercy of God, to love oneself more than God, are truly actual sins. Martin Chemnitz, in the Examination, session 5 of the Council of Trent, page 156, teaches that that sentence of Scripture, Genesis 6 — Every imagination of the thought of their heart is only evil at all times (for so he cites it) — is to be understood of original sin, and pertains also to boys and infants; and he proves it, because in Genesis 8 this sentence is repeated, and it is added that the imagination of the human heart is evil from boyhood; and the Hebrew word which signifies boyhood is said also of infancy. And yet on the following page, explaining what “figmentum” is, which in Hebrew is called yetser: “It signifies,” says he, “either to conceive, form, and as it were fashion something within, in the mind, or to feign or form something without, according to the conceived idea.” And below: “It signifies, therefore, that when the mind first conceives and forms thoughts — the very first motions, endeavors, or impulses of the heart, when a man is without the Holy Spirit — these are already evil things.” And page 158 he says that the thought which has been confirmed by deliberation is also called in the Scriptures yetser, and alleges Isaias, chapter 26. Wherefore Chemnitz openly enough refers to the sin of origin actual thought — both the first and undeliberated, and also that confirmed, as he speaks, by deliberation.
But this error is so gross that it scarcely needs refutation. For first, it follows from it that in infants — especially those existing in the mother's womb, or newly born — there is no original sin; which is repugnant not only to the holy Scriptures, but even to the doctrine and confession of the Lutherans themselves. For infants in the wombs of their mothers, or newly born, have no use of mind, and therefore can neither despise God, nor flee from him, nor be angry with him, nor despair of grace, nor desire or think anything against the law of God. And contrariwise, they are not bound to have faith and the fear of God in act, since those acts require the use of reason, which infants lack. Hence, if original sin be to lack faith and the fear of God, and that lack in infants is not sin, certainly it follows that infants lack original sin even before Baptism. But if perchance the Lutherans answer that infants have such use of mind, and that in very deed depraved motions of the heart exist in them, and the lack of good acts is imputed to them — they will fight not only with St. Augustine, who in book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 35, laughs at certain Pelagians who said that in newly born infants there are actual sins; but also with experience itself. For we experience that newly born infants are so destitute of the use of mind that they do not even perceive where they are, and, the breasts lying beside them, can, when hungry, rather weep than suck — seeing they know neither the breasts themselves nor anything else. But they who recognize neither the breasts nor their mother — how is it credible that God is recognized by them? And they who cannot think of God at all — in what way, I ask, can they despise him, flee from him, be angry with him, despair of his grace, or doubt of his mercy? What of this: that in the very first instant of conception men begin to have the sin of origin, and yet in that first instant — perhaps also for some time after — they have not only no use of mind, but not even of the senses? Finally, does not the divine Scripture perspicuously free little ones from all actual sin? For the Apostle writes, Romans 9: For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil — and he speaks of Jacob and Esau, not yet born, but already conceived and existing in the womb, as can be understood from the very place of his epistle. Moses also says of the little ones, in chapter 1 of Deuteronomy: Your children, that this day know not the difference of good and evil. And the Lord, in Jonas 4, says that in Ninive there were more than 120,000 men who knew not what was between their right hand and their left — which place by St. Jerome and others is referred to the ignorance which is discerned in infants. But if little ones are engaged in such deep darkness of ignorance, and know not the difference of good and evil, nor what is between their right hand and their left, much more must they be ignorant of the judgment of God, his mercy, grace, and the like. But they who are ignorant of these things certainly cannot flee the judgment of God, doubt of his mercy, despair of the grace of the Lord, and do other things of the same kind.
They will answer, perhaps, that they do not posit in little ones any actions of the mind repugnant to the law of God, but only the mind itself, despoiled of original justice, and prone to producing actions repugnant to the law of God when the use of reason shall have come; and that they called this vice actual sin, not because it is some action, but because it is an actual and true proneness, or a disease and defect existing in very deed and in act in the man, and not a mere negation or relation. For so Luther, in the assertion of the third article, and Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces put forth in 1521, seem to explain their opinion: “Truly,” says Luther, “the tinder is actual sin: an actual privation or defect of that thing which ought to be present, and an actual position or presence of the weakness and the other affections which ought to be absent.” But if they so explain their opinion: first, they abuse the words against the custom of all the schools; for no one hitherto has called a proneness, or a passion, actual sin. Next, they say wrongly that the sin of origin is extenuated if one will not have pertain to that sin the being angry with God, fleeing the judgment of God, doubting of mercy, and despairing of grace, and the like; for those are not pronenesses, but actions. Third, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession does not rightly say that the sin of origin is not only the privation of the acts of faith and fear, but also of the gifts by which those acts are effected. For the privation of the acts of faith and fear is actual sin; for not only an evil act, but also the omission of a good act, is called actual sin. Hence it necessarily follows either that infants have actual sin, at least of omission, which is most absurd; or that they lack even the original, which not even the adversaries themselves deny to be contrary to the Christian faith. Fourth, Luther writes ill, in the assertion of article 3, that it cannot be that the tinder be separated from act and motion, since it is a living thing, and one that always moves and begets evil acts. For if that cannot be, certainly there follows what we said before — that from the doctrine of the Lutherans it is gathered that infants either lack the tinder, and thereby original sin; or have evil acts, namely by despising God, fleeing him, etc. Fifth, they are compelled to confess that that place, Genesis 8 — the imagination of the heart is evil from boyhood — does not pertain to the sin of origin, since they will have thoughts understood by the imagination; and yet they are wont to allege that place as a primary one for the sin of origin.
We have it, then, that the doctrine of the adversaries is inconstant, and that they altogether incur this absurdity: that they either make the little ones immune from original sin, or do not rightly explain the nature of original sin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Proponitur et refellitur secundus error , qui est multorum Lutheranorum. Exploso errore Illyrici, sequitur ut ad sen¬ tentiam caeterorum haereticorum hujus tem¬ poris veniamus. Et quidem prima fronte videntur tam Lutherani, quam Calvinistae nec inter se, nec ab Ecclesia dissidere, nam ex adversariis Philippus tum in Apologia Confessionis Augustanae, art. 2. tum in locis communibus, titulo de peccato originali; et Joannes Calvinus in lib. ii. Institut. cap. i. admittunt definitionem communem peccati originalis, quod sit videlicet privatio justitiae originalis : Murtinus quoque Bucerus in epist. ad ltom. testatur, se non videre, in quo Scholastici, quoad peccatura originis, CAPUT IV. ab orthodoxa sententia varient. Et ex no¬ stris Joannes Hoffmebterus in judicio de 2. art. Confess. Augustan. et Alphonsus Virve- sius in tertia Philippica, vix ullam agnoscunt dissensionem in hoc articulo inter nos et sectarios. Tamen si res tota diligenter ex¬ pendatur, duo quaedam in doctrina adver¬ sariorum invenientur, quae longissime di¬ stant a vera, sanaque doctrina Catholico¬ rum. Alterum est, quod plurimi eorum pecca¬ tum originis non distinguunt a peccato ac¬ tuali. Alterum quod ea, quae Catholici volunt esse vulnera naturae, infirmitates, morbos ex peccato originali relictos, ut ignorantiam, difficultatem, concupiscentiam, ipsi vere et proprie peccatum originis esse velint, et in omnibus per Christum justificatis ita mane¬ re, ut natura sua damnare possit homines, si Deus illud imputare velit. Sed priorem errorem proponamus ,et breviter refellamus. Igitur prior error extat apud Lutherum in assertione articuli tertii, ubi dicit, impossi¬ bile esse, ut fomes sit absque actuali pecca¬ to. Et supra in assertione secundi articuli jam dixerat, fomitem, sive concupiscentiam esse peccatum originale. Rursus in assertione ejusdem terti articuli : « Omitto, inquit, di¬ cere, quod originale peccatum, ut omnia peccata, ita et incredulitas est. » Idem e- tiamLutherus in commentario 2. cap. Gen. dicit, peccatum originale esse incredulita¬ tem, desperationem, et alia similia, quae sine dubio peccata actualia sunt. Idem in asser¬ tione ejusdem articuli tertii, dicit fomitem esse rem vivam, et quae movetur. Et tandem addit haec verba : « Ideo fomes vere est ac¬ tuale peccatum. » Jam vero Philippus Melanchthon in locis communibus, editis anno 1522. titulo : Quid peccatum, sic ait : « Peccatum originale est nativa propensio, et quidam genialis impe¬ tus et energia, qua ad peccandum trahimur, propagata ab Adam in omnem posterita¬ tem. » Et paulo post : « Scriptura non vocat hoc originale, illud actuale peccatum. Est enim et originale peccatum plane actualis quajdam prava cupiditas. » Idem Philippus, cum in Confessione Augustana art. 2. po¬ suisset, peccatum originale esse, quod ho¬ mines sint sine metu, et fiducia Dei; et Ca¬ tholici in refutatione Confessionis, qua; extat apud Fabricium Leodium in Harmonia Cen- 3!)!) fossionis Augustana?, objecissent, quod esse sine metu et fiducia Doi, sint peccata actua¬ lia. Ille non aliter respondit in Apologia, nisi Confessionem Germanicam allegando, in qua non solum actus, sed etiam propensio et dona Dei ad efficiendum timorem et fidu¬ ciam hominibus in peccato natis denegan¬ tur. Itaque non negavit, peccata actualia pertinere ad originale peccatum, sed addit aliquid amplius. Idem etiam in eadem Apologia dicit a Scholasticis extenuari peccatum originis, et inter esetera sic loquitur : « Itaque, inquit, cum de peccato originis loquuntur, graviora vitia humana; natura; non commemorant, scilicet ignorationem Dei, contemptum Dei, vocare metu et fiducia Dei, odisse judicium Dei fugereDeum judicantem, irasci Deo, de¬ sperare gratiam, habere fiduciam rerum pin¬ sentium, etc. » Sic etiam in locis communi¬ bus, editis post annum 1540. non dicit qui¬ dem aperte, peccatum originis esse actua¬ lem cupiditatem, ut antea dixerat, tamen explicans quid sit concupiscentia, sive dzxlitx (ut ipse loquitur) omnium potentiarum, in qua constituit rationem peccati originis, di¬ cit ad eam pertinere ignorationem Dei, du¬ bitationes, esse sine timore, sine dilectione, amare se magis quam Deum, etc. At profe¬ cto negari non potest, quin contemptus Dei, odium judicii divini irasci Deo, fugere judi¬ cantem Deum, desperare gratiam, dubitare de misericordia Dei, amare se plus quam Deum, sint vere peccata actualia. Martinus Kemnitius in Examine, sess. 5. Concilii Tridentini, pag. 456. docet illam sententiam Scriptura;, Genes, vi : Omne firmentum cogitationis cordis eorum tantum malum est omni tempore (1). Sic enim ipse citat inlelligendam esse de peccato originali, ct pertinere etiam ad pueros et infantes, et probat, quia Genes. 8. repetitur lnec sen¬ tentia, et additur, Figmentum cordis huma¬ ni esse malum a pueritia ; et vox hebreea, qua; significat pueritiam, dicitur etiam de infantia, et tamen in sequenti pagina expli¬ cans quid sit figmentum , quod hebraice dicitur « Significat, inquit, vel intus animo aliquid concipere, formare et quasi effigiare, vel foris juxta conceptam ideam aliquid fingere, seu formare. » Et infra : « Significat igitur, quando mens primum concipit, et format cogitationes, ipsos primos (1) Gen VI, 5. iOU. LIBER V. motus, conatus seu impetus cordis, quando homo est sine Spiritu sancto, jam esse res malas. » Et pag. -458. dicit, cogitationem, quae deliberatione confirmata est, appellari etiam in Scripturis, et allegat Isai. cap. 26. Quare Kemnitius satis aperte ad pec¬ catum originis refert actualem cogitationem, tum primam et indeliberatam, tum etiam deliberatione, ut ipse loquitur, confirma¬ tam. Sed hic error tam est crassus, ut vix re¬ futatione indigeat. Primum enim sequitur fex eo in infantibus, pnesertim in utero ma¬ tris existontibus, aut recens natis non esse originale peccatum, quod non solum Scri¬ pturis sanctis, sed etiam ipsorum Luthera- norum doctrinae, et confessioni repugnat. Infantes enim in uteris matrum, aut recens nati, nullum habent usum mentis, et ideo nec Deum contemnere, neque abeo fugere, neque illi irasci, neque gratiam desperare, neque aliud contra Dei legem appetere, vel cogitare possunt. Et contra, fidem et timo¬ rem Dei actu habere non tenentur, cum isti actus usum rationis requirant, quo infantes carent. Proinde si peccatum originale sit care¬ re fide et metu Dei, et ista carentia in infan¬ tibus peccatum non sit, certe sequitur infan¬ tes peccato originali etiam ante Baptismum carere. Quod si forte Luthcrani respondeant in¬ fantes ejusmodi usum mentis habei’e, et revera pravos motus cordis in illis existere, et carentiam bonorum actuum illis imputari; non solum pugnabunt cum S. Augustino, qui lib i. de peccatorum meritis et remis¬ sione, cap. 35. ridet quosdam Pelagianos, qui in infantibus recens natis, actualia pec¬ cata esse dicebant ; sed etiam cum ipsa ex¬ perientia : experimur enim infantes recens natos usque adeo mentis usu destitutos esse, ut nec ubi sint sentiant et juxta se jacentibus mammis magis possint esurientes flere , quam suggere, quippe qui nec mammas quidem ipsas, nec aliud aliquod norint. Qui vero nec mammas, nec matrem agnoscunt, quomodo credibile est ab iis Deum agnosci ? et qui Deum omnino cogitare non valent, quo pacto (quaeso) ullum contemnere ab illo fugere, illi irasci, gratiam ejus desperare, vel de misericordia ipsius dubitare queunt ? Quid quod in ipso primo instanti conce¬ ptionis incipiunt homines peccatum originis habere, et tamen in illo primo instanti, for¬ tasse etiam aliquanto tempore post, non solum non habent usum mentis, sed ne sen¬ suum quidem. Denique nonne Scriptura divina parvulos ab omni actuali peccato perspicue liberat? Siquidem scribit Apostolus ad Rom ix : Cum nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid boni egissent, aut mali (I). Loquitur autem de Jacob et Esaii, nondum natis, sed jam conceptis, et in utere existentibus, ut ex ipso loco episto¬ la) ejus intelligi potest. Moses quoque de parvulis dicit, in i cap. Deut. : Filii tui, qui hodie ignorant distantiam boni, et mali (2). Et Dominus Jonae quarto, dicit in Ninive fuisse plusquam 120,000. hominum, qui igno¬ rabant, quid esset inter dexteram et sini¬ stram suam. Qui locus a S. Hieronymo, et aliis refertur ad ignorantiam, qua) cernitur in infantibus. Quod si parvuli in tam profundis ignoran¬ tia) tenebris versantur, et distantiam boni, et mali, et quid inter dexteram et sinistram ipsorum sit ignorent, multo magis Dei judi¬ cium, misericordiam, gratiam et similia eos ignorare necesse est. Qui vero ista ignorant, non possunt certe judicium Dei fugere, de misericordia dubitare, gratiam Domini de¬ sperare, atque alia ejusdem generis agere. Respondebunt fortasse, se non ponere in parvulis actiones aliquas mentis, repugnan¬ tes legi Dei, sed tantum mentem ipsam spo¬ liatam originali justitia, et pronam ad actio¬ nes legi Dei repugnantes producendas, cum rationis usus advenerit. Yocasse autem se hoc vitium actuale peccatum, non quod sit actio aliqua, sed quod sit actualis, et vera pronitas, sive morbus ac defectus re ipsa, atque actu in homine existens, et non mera negatio, aut relatio. Sic enim videntur ex¬ plicare sententiam suam Lutherus in asser¬ tione articuli tertii, et Melanchthon in locis editis anno 1522 : « Yere, inquit, Lutherus, fomes est actuale peccatum actualis priva¬ tio, sive defectus ejus rei, quae adesse debet, et actualis positio seu praesentia infirmitatis et aliorum affectuum, qui deesse debent. » At si ita sententiam suam explicent, pri¬ mo abutuntur vocabulis contra scholarum omnium consuetudinem. Nemo enim hacte¬ nus pronitatem, vel passionem appellavit actuale peccatura! Deinde perperam dicunt, extenuari pec- (1) Rom. IX 11. - (2) Deut. I. 39. CAPU'1 V. catum originis, si quis ad id peccatuxn per¬ tinere non velit, irasci Deo, fugere judicium Dei, dubitare de misericordia, et desperare gratiam, et similia; ista enim non pronita- tes, sed actiones sunt. Tertio, non recte Apologia Confess. Au¬ gustanae dicit, peccatum originis non solum esse privationem actuum fideret timoris, sed etiam donorum, quibus illi actus efficiuntur. Nam privatio actuum fidei, et timoris ac¬ tuale peccatum est : non enim solus actus malus, sed etiam omissio actus boni dicitur actuale peccatum. Proinde necessario se¬ quitur, aut infantes habere peccatum actua¬ le, saltem omissionis, quod absurdissimum est, aut carere etiam originali, quod fidei Christiana; contrarium esse, ne ipsi quidem adversarii negant. Quarto, male Lutherus in assert. art. 3. scribit, fieri non posse, ut fomes separetur ab actu et motu, cum sit res viva, et quse semper movetur, ac gignit malos actus. Nam si id fieri nequit, certe sequitur quod antea dicebamus, ex doctrina Lutheranorum col¬ ligi, ut infantes vel careant fomite, ac per hoc originali peccato; vel habeant malos actus Deum videlicet contemnendo, fugien¬ do, etc. Quinto, coguntur fateri locum illum Ge¬ nes. viii : Figmentum cordis malum a pueri¬ tia (1), non pertinere ad peccatum originis, cum per figmentum cogitationes intelligi velint. Et tamen eum locum tanquam pri¬ marium pro peccato originis allegare so¬ lent. Habemus igitur inconstantem esse doctri¬ nam adversariorum, et illud absurdum eos omnino sequi, ut vel parvulos a peccato ori¬ ginali immunes faciant, vel naturam peccati originalis non recte explicent.