Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 5: The third error is set forth, which is common to all Lutherans and Calvinists
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).
Now the third error is that which at the beginning of the preceding chapter we said was the second of the two things in which the Lutherans do not agree with the Catholics. It is, then, the common opinion among the sectaries that the corruption of nature, or concupiscence, such as remains in men after justification, is by its nature truly and properly sin, although it is not imputed to believers. And by the corruption of nature they understand those things which the Catholics are wont to call the wounds of nature: namely, ignorance, difficulty, propensity to evil, and the like.
Now the question between us and the adversaries is not whether human nature was gravely depraved through the sin of Adam; for that we gladly confess. Nor is the question whether this depravation in some manner pertains to original sin, so that it can be called the material element of that sin; for that St. Thomas concedes, in 1-2, question 82, article 1, where he says that the sin of origin is a corrupt habit — that is, a languor and depravation of the whole nature, standing by way of a habit; and in article 3 he says that concupiscence is the sin of origin materially. But the whole controversy is whether the corruption of nature, and especially concupiscence, of itself and from its nature, such as is found even in the baptized and justified, is properly the sin of origin. For this the adversaries contend; but the Catholics deny it — who teach that, the will being healed through justifying grace, the remaining diseases not only do not constitute men guilty, but cannot constitute them so, since they have not the true notion of sin. Wherefore St. Thomas, whom the Catholic theologians chiefly follow, said indeed, in 1-2, question 82, article 1, that the sin of origin is a corrupt habit, which contains not only the privation of justice, but also the perversion of all the powers; yet in article 3 he divided that habit into two parts — the aversion of the mind from God, and the rebellion of the lower part against the higher — and added that in the aversion of the mind from God alone does the sin of origin properly and formally consist; but that in the rebellion of the lower part, which was the effect of the mind's rebellion from God, the sin does not consist except materially.
Further, that this which we have said was the common opinion of the Lutherans and Calvinists is plain from their own testimonies, of which we shall subjoin a few (for example's sake) in this place. Luther, then, in the assertion of article 2, when he had said many things to prove that concupiscence in the baptized and justified is sin, thus objects to himself: “I know what they will here oppose to me: namely, that all the things that have been said prove that not sin, but a defect or weakness, is left in us after Baptism.” And below: “But,” says he, “that they so call it a defect as to deny it to be sin, and will have it to be not fault, but only the punishment of sin, I cannot admit.” And below: “Meanwhile the favor of God takes us up and sustains us, not imputing unto death what is left of sin in us, although it truly is sin, and could be imputed.” Philip Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces put forth at a later time, under the title On the Sin of Origin, asks what is the formal element in the sin of origin, and says that it is the guilt; then he asks what is the foundation of this relation which is called guilt, and says that it is the vice born with us: “When it is asked,” says he, “what is the formal element of the sin of origin, it is rightly answered: the guilt. But then the foundation of this relation is to be sought; and that is the vice born with us, which is an evil fighting with the law of God.” From which words we understand that the vice born with us — that is, concupiscence — by its nature effects guilt, because it is an evil fighting with the law of God, and thereby by its nature is sin, although through Baptism the guilt is taken away, and it ceases to be sin — not in very deed, but through non-imputation. John Calvin, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 1, §8, thus defines the sin of origin: “The hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us guilty of the wrath of God, then also brings forth in us the works which Scripture calls the works of the flesh.” Which definition could easily be reconciled with the opinion of St. Thomas and of the other Catholics, did not Calvin straightway adjoin these words: “And this is properly what by Paul is rather often named sin.” For he looks back to chapters 6 and 7 to the Romans, where the blessed Apostle frequently calls sin the concupiscence of the flesh, which he experienced also in himself, though justified and holy. From which we understand that for Calvin the sin of origin is the corruption of nature, even after the chief part of that corruption — that is, the aversion of the mind from God — has been taken away through justifying grace. Wherefore the same Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, many places of St. Augustine being brought forward, contends that all desires are sins, though consent be wanting. Peter Martyr, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans, thus defines the sin of origin: “The depravation of the nature of the whole man, transmitted from the fall of the first parent into posterity through generation, which, unless the benefit of Christ come to aid, adjudges all born thence to almost infinite evils and to eternal damnation.” Then he teaches that this depravation contains the privation of the rectitude of all the parts and powers, and moreover certain positive things — a propensity to evil, an impetus of nature against the word of God, and other things of that kind. Finally he adds: “The things that remain in the regenerated are not imputed unto eternal death; but every thing ought to be judged from what it is in itself. Wherefore, if it be asked of us whether that which remains in the regenerated is sin, we shall answer that it is sin.” Martin Chemnitz, in the Examination of session 5 of the Council of Trent, page 454, will have not only concupiscence, but even the very mass of flesh, though the organs be not yet formed, to be truly and properly sin: “When, therefore,” says he, “the mass of the embryo, in the first warmth of conception, first began to be cherished by the heat of the womb, it was already contaminated with sin; which contamination, according to David's confession, had the true notion of sin — though the organs neither of mind, nor of will, nor of heart were yet formed.” And below, page 464, he asks concerning concupiscence in the reborn, what it is of itself, from itself, and from its own nature; and at length, after many things, he answers, page 468: “The reborn ought not to feign that the concupiscence remaining in their members is such that of itself — if, grace and the shelter of remission being removed, God willed to enter into judgment with it — it could not make a man hateful to God, and damn him; but let them acknowledge what an evil it is, and give thanks to God, who on account of his Son the mediator does not impute that evil unto damnation.” To this sense speak almost all the other sectaries of this time.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. Proponitur tertius error , qui est communis omnibus Lutheranis et Calvinistis Jam tertius error est is, quem initio capi¬ tis superioris dicebamus esse alterum ex duobus, in quibus Lutherani cum Catholicis non conveniunt. Est igit ur sententia commu¬ to 1 nis apud sectarios corruptionem natur», sive concupiscentiam, qualis remanet in ho¬ minibus post justificationem esse peccatum ex natura sua vere ac proprie, quamvis credentibus non imputetur. Intelligunt au¬ tem per natur» corruptionem ea, quae Ca¬ tholici vulnera natur» appellare solent, vi¬ delicet ignorantiam, difficultatem, propensio¬ nem ad malum, et similia. Non est autem quaestio inter nos et ad¬ versarios, sit ne humana natura graviter depravata per Adae peccatum. Id enim li¬ benter fatemur. Neque etiam quaestio est, an haec depravatio aliquo modo ad pecca¬ tum originale pertineat, ita ut materialq ejus peccati dici possit. Id enim sanctus Thom. concedit in 1.2. quaest. 82. art. 1. ubi dicit, peccatum originis esse habitum corruptum, id est, languorem et depravatio¬ nem totius naturae per modum habitus se habentem, et in art. 3. dicit concupiscen¬ tiam esse peccatum originis materialiter. Sed tota controversia est, utrum corru¬ ptio naturae, ac praesertim concupiscentiaper se, et ex natura sua, qualis invenitur etiam in baptizatis et justificatis, sit proprie pecca¬ tum originis. Id enim adversarii conten¬ dunt : Catholici autem negant, quippe qui, sanata voluntate per gratiam justificantem, docent reliquos morbos non solum non con¬ stituere homines reos, sed neque posse con¬ stituere, cum non habeant veram peccati rationem. Quocirca S. Thom. quem in primis Theo¬ logi Catholici sequuntur, dixit quidem in I. 2. qu»st. 82. art. 1. peccatum originis esse habitum corruptum, qui non solum conti¬ neret privationem justitia?, sed etiam per¬ versionem omnium potentiarum : tamen in art. 3. divisit habitum illum in partes duas, in aversionem mentis a Deo, et rebellionem partis inferioris a superiore, et addidit in sola aversione mentis a Deo consistere pro¬ prie et formaliter peccatum originis in re¬ bellione autem partis inferioris, quee fuit effectus rebellionis mentis a Deo, non con¬ sistere peccatum, nisi materialiter. Porro eam, quam diximus fuisse commu¬ nem, sententiam Lutheranorum et Calvini- starum, perspicuum est ex testimoniis ipso¬ rum, quorum pauca (exempli gratia) hoc loco subjiciemus. Igitur Lutherus in assertione art. 2. (l)Gen. VIII, 21. 402 LIBER V. cum multa dixisset, ut probaret, concupi¬ scentiam in baptizatis, et justificatis esse peccatum, ita sibi ipse objicit : « Scio quid hic mihi opposituri sint, scilicet omnia quse dicta sunt, probare non peccatum, sed defe¬ ctum, seu infirmitatem in nobis relinqui post Baptismum. » Et infra : «Verum, in¬ quit, quod defectum sic appellant, ut pec¬ catum esse negent, et non culpam, sed poe¬ nam, tantum peccati esse velint, admittere non possum. » Et infra : « Interim, inquit, favor Dei nos suscipit et sustinet, non im¬ putans ad mortem, quod reliquum est pec¬ cati in nobis, licet vere peccatum sit et imputari possit. » Philippus Melanchthon in locis editis po¬ steriore tempore, titulo de peccato originis, quaerit, quod sit formale in peccato originis, ac dicit, esse reatum. Deinde quaerit, quod sit fundamentum hujus relationis, quae dici¬ tur reatus, ac dicit, esse vitium nobiscum nascens. « Cum, inquit, quaeritur, quod sit formale peccati originis , recte respondetur, reatus. Deinde vero quaerendum est funda¬ mentum hujus relationis : id vero est vitium nobiscum nascens, quod est malum pugnans cum lege Dei. » Ex quibus verbis intelligi- mus, vitium nobiscum nascens, id est, con¬ cupiscentiam natura sua efficere reatum, quia est malum pugnans cum lege Dei, ac per hoc natura sua esse peccatum, tametsi per Baptismum tollatur reatus, et desinat esse peccatum, non re ipsa, sed per non imputationem. Joannes Calvinus lib. ii. Institut -cap. 1. §. 8. sic definit peccatum originis : « Haere- ditaria naturae nostrae pravitas et corruptio, quse primum facit reos irse Dei, tum etiam opera in nobis profert, quae Scriptura vocat opera carnis. » Quae definitio facile posset cum sententia S. Thomae et aliorum Catho¬ licorum conciliari, nisi continuo haec verba Calvinus adjungeret : « Atque id est proprie quod a Paulo ssepius peccatum nominatur. » Respicit enim ad cap. vi. et vii. ad Roman. ubi beatus Apostolus concupiscentiam car¬ nis, quam in se quoque ipse, quamvis justi¬ ficatus, et sanctus experiebatur, peccatum frequenter appellat. Ex quo intelligimus, peccatum originis Calvino esse naturae corruptionem, etiam posteaqam praecipua pars ejus corruptionis, id est, aversio mentis a Deo, per gratiam ju¬ stificantem sublata est. Quocirca idem Cal¬ vinus lib. m. Institut. cap. 3. multis locis S. Augustini prolatis contendit, omnes cupi¬ ditates esse peccata, tametsi consensus desit. Petrus Martyr in commentar, cap. v. ad Roman. peccatum originis ita definit : « To¬ tius hominis naturae depravatio a lapsu pri¬ mi parentis in posteros traducta per genera¬ tionem, quae nisi beneficium Christi succur¬ rat, omnes inde nascentes, infinitis prope malis, et aeterna; damnationi adjudicat. » Deinde docet, hanc depravationem continere privationem rectitudinis omnium partium et potentiarum , et praeterea quaedam positiva, propensionem ad malum, naturae impetum contra verbum Dei, et alia id genus. Deni¬ que addit : « Quae, inquit, supersunt in re¬ generatis, ad aeternam mortem non impu¬ tantur; verum quaevis res ex eo judicari debet, quod est in seipsa. Quare si quaeratur ex nobis, an sit peccatum quod manet in regeneratis, respondebimus esse peccatum.» Martinus Kemnitius in Examine sess. 3. Concilii Tridentini, pag. 434. non solum concupiscentiam, sed ipsam etiam molem carnis, quamvis nondum formatis organis, vult esse vere proprieque peccatum : « Cum igitur, inquit, massa embrionis in primo ar¬ dore conceptionis primum inciperet uteri calore foveri, jam erat peccato contaminata, quse contaminatio, juxta Davidis confessio¬ nem, habebat veram rationem peccati ; cum nondum formata essent vel mentis, vel vo¬ luntatis vel cordis organa. » Et infra pag. 464. quairit de concupiscentia in renatis, quid sit jier se, ex se, et ex sua natura* Et tandem post multa respondet pag. 468 : « Non, inquit, fingere debent renati reli¬ quam in membris suis concupiscentiam ta¬ lem esse, quse per se , etiamsi remota gratia et remissionis umbraculo, Deus in judicium cum illa intrare vellet, non possit hominem exosum Deo facere, et damnare : sed agno¬ scant quale sit malum, et gratias agant Deo, qui propter filium mediatorem malum illud non imputat ad damnationem. » In hanc sententiam loquuntur fere omnes alii hujus temporis sectarii.