Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 6: The calumnies and lies of the heretics are 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).
But it pleases me, before we come to the refutation of this error, briefly to note the calumnies or lies, the ineptitudes and contradictions, with which the adversaries have adorned their disputations in this matter, as in all others.
First, Luther, in the book against the execrable Bull of Antichrist, discoursing of the third article: “Of this matter,” says he, “I have disputed with probability, nor am I certain today.” And he says like things of the fourth; and yet, one page later, he writes thus: “I by these writings testify that I confess all the things condemned by that execrable Bull as Catholic dogmas.” And already before, at the beginning of the book, he had prefaced thus: “I assert and embrace, with the whole confidence of my spirit, the articles condemned by it, and I pronounce that they are to be asserted by all Christians under pain of eternal malediction.” And so, that the tinder delays a soul departing from the body from the entrance of heaven, even if no actual sin be present (for this was article 3), Luther holds for a Catholic dogma, and will have it held by all under pain of eternal malediction; and yet he is still uncertain what happens with such a soul — whether it be delayed from the entrance of heaven or not — and disputes only with probability. The same Luther, in the assertion of all his articles, article 2, imposes on St. Augustine that he said that sin passes in act, remains in guilt. And again, at the end of the disputation: “Let us conclude,” says he, “with that most beautiful word of Augustine: Sin, says he, is remitted in Baptism, not that it be not, but that it be not imputed. Behold, sin is, and remains, but is not imputed.” But nowhere does St. Augustine speak so; nor have the adversaries yet been able to point to one place where St. Augustine says that sin remains in act, not in guilt, or is in the man but is not imputed. He says indeed that concupiscence remains after Baptism; but he adds that it not only is not imputed, but is not even sin, unless reason, conquered, yield to it. The testimonies of St. Augustine are had in book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapters 23 and 27 [al. 25].
Philip Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, in the defense of the second article, which is on original sin, complains gravely of the Scholastics, in these words: “These diseases, which are most contrary to the law of God, the Scholastics do not observe; nay, meanwhile they attribute to human nature entire strength for loving God above all things.” And a little after: “But if human nature has such strength that of itself it can love God above all things, as the Scholastics confidently affirm, what will original sin be? and to what purpose will the grace of Christ be needed, if we can be made just by our own justice?” But after a page or two, forgetful of himself, he says that the Scholastics hold the contrary: “And so,” says he, “the old definition, when it says that sin is the lack of justice, takes away not only the obedience of the lower powers of man, but also takes away the knowledge of God, trust toward God, the fear and love of God — or certainly takes away the power of effecting these things. For the theologians themselves in the schools hand down that these things are not effected without certain gifts and the help of grace.” The Scholastics, then, do not attribute to man after the fall entire strength for loving God and for justification, if they hold that these things are not effected without certain gifts and the help of grace. The same Philip, in the Commonplaces put forth in the year 1521, under the title On Sin: “Nor is there reason why we should dispute about those foolish relations in sin: a depraved affection, a depraved motion of the heart against the law of God, is sin.” But in the same Commonplaces, put forth at a later time, under the same title, he teaches that the formal element of sin is the guilt, and that the guilt is a relation: “The learned rightly know,” says he, “that universally the formal element of sin is the guilt. But this relation befalls some evil,” etc. The same also a little after: “The Monks,” says he, “unlearnedly omitted the guilt, and said that the formal element of sin is the defect, and that this is taken away in the reborn, and the material remains — by which they understood the appetites themselves, founded by God, which are good things; but what they were saying, they did not understand,” etc. There are many errors in these few words. First, the same Philip who in the earlier Commonplaces reprehended the Scholastics for acknowledging relations — that is, guilt — in sins, in the later Commonplaces himself defends the guilt and the relations against the Scholastics. Next, he openly contradicts Luther, in whose words he had sworn; for Luther, in the assertion of the second article, reprehends the Scholastics for saying that concupiscence in the reborn is a defect; but Philip reprehends the same men for denying that the same thing is a defect. Third, he lies most evidently — unless perchance he has not read the Scholastics, and has resolved to confute not so much what they wrote as what he himself dreamed about them. For the Scholastics, or Monks, so far from omitting the guilt, that Scotus and Durandus said that scarcely anything but the guilt is properly sin; and St. Thomas, though besides the guilt he acknowledges also the stain, yet in no way omitted the guilt, as is plain from 1-2, question 81, article 3, ad 2, where he says that the sin of origin is taken away through Baptism as to the guilt, and remains as to the tinder. Finally, that also is a most open lie: that the Monks say that concupiscence in the reborn is not a defect, but a good thing — that is, the appetites as they were founded by God. For no Catholic Monks ever said those things; but all with the highest consent teach that after Baptism there remains in the reborn a concupiscence rebellious and repugnant to the law of the mind, and that this is evil, and a disease and defect — yet not sin properly so called, unless the rational will give assent to its desires.
John Calvin, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 1, §9: “It is frigid and foolish,” says he, “to restrict the corruption which remains from the sin of Adam, and that sin, to sensuality, or to the motions of sensuality. In which Peter Lombard uncovered his gross ignorance, who, seeking and searching for its seat, said that original sin is in the flesh, Paul being witness — not indeed properly, but because it appears more in the flesh.” But in these words Calvin either wished to lie and impose on the simpler sort, or did not read Peter Lombard, or did not understand him. For Peter Lombard nowhere restricted the sin of origin to the motions of sensuality; nay rather, he taught that it cannot consist in those motions, because it would be actual, not original. For thus he speaks in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 30, letter G: “Now it remains to see what original sin itself is. Which, since it is not actual, is not an act or motion of the soul or of the body.” Next, the same Peter was not seeking the seat of original sin when he said that it is in the flesh, but the cause. For in distinction 30, letter B, he proposes the questions to be treated by him, and says that they are three: what original sin is; why it is called original; and how it is transmitted. To which he afterwards adds a fourth, distinction 32, letter A: how it is remitted in Baptism. But what its seat is he nowhere proposes, nowhere treats, but everywhere assumes as known that it is the soul. For, as he himself says, distinction 31, letter C, fault cannot be in an irrational thing. And so, when he says that the sin is in the flesh, he does not understand that it is in the flesh as in its seat or subject, as Calvin dreams, but as in its cause: because, namely, it is transmitted through carnal concupiscence. For thus he himself speaks, distinction 31, letter B: “Which is said to remain in the flesh, not because it is in the soul [from the flesh as its seat], but because through the corruption of the flesh it is in the soul.” And letter D: “The flesh which is sown in the concupiscence of lust has neither the fault, nor the act of the fault, but the cause.” Finally, whatever Peter Lombard says, he proves the whole of it from the holy Fathers, Ambrose and Augustine. Wherefore Calvin, while he reprehends Peter Lombard for gross ignorance, reprehends Ambrose and Augustine for gross ignorance. But so great a lust of calumniating or lying harms no one more, before fair judges, than its own author.
Now Peter Martyr, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans — that he may prove himself in this matter, as in the rest, a false Martyr — writes that that opinion of his about the sin of origin is also of St. Augustine, and of St. Anselm, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Scotus. Which is certainly most false; for no testimony of these Doctors can be brought forward by which it may be proved that the diseases which remain in the regenerated are of themselves sins, and can make men guilty of eternal death. Certainly St. Augustine, whom the others followed, in very many places, which will afterwards be cited, affirms the contrary in express words.
Martin Chemnitz, in the Examination of session 5 of the Council of Trent, besides that incredible paradox — or rather delirium of Illyricus and Manichaeus — by which he teaches that the embryo itself, not yet ensouled, has the true and proper notion of sin, rages altogether tragically because the most learned Andradius had said that in the Council of Trent it was not defined in what the proper notion of original sin is set, and that therefore on this matter, the faith remaining safe, the opinions of disputants in the schools are still free. And hence the same Chemnitz gathers that by the Council of Trent liberty was left of defending all opinions, however profane and openly fighting with the sacred Scriptures. “For the perpetual memory of the matter” (says he, page 456), “be it known to the whole Christian world that the profane opinion of Pighius (to say nothing harsher) was in the Tridentine decree neither disapproved nor condemned, but was left, with the other profane disputations of the Scholastics about original sin, under liberty of opinion.” But if the Council be read diligently, it will easily appear both that what Andradius wrote is true, and yet that all the profane opinions, both of Pighius and of others, were condemned by the Council of Trent. For of the things which pertain to the notion of original sin, some are necessary to the Catholic faith, some can be unknown without any detriment to the faith. The Council, then, defined those things which were of the former kind: that the sin of origin is not only a disease, but also sin truly and properly so called — against the errors of Zwingli; likewise that it inheres in the man, and hence is not a substance, but an accident — against the dreams of Illyricus; again, that it is not one in all, but proper to each — against the less right opinion of Pighius and Catharinus; that it has place not only in the children of unbelievers, but also in the children of the faithful — against the heresy of Bucer, Martyr, and Calvin; finally, that through Baptism it is so blotted out that in the newly baptized nothing remains which has the true notion of sin — against the common doctrine of all the Lutherans, repugnant to the Catholic faith. But these errors being exploded and condemned, the same Council would not sift the subtler questions of the Scholastics, which, the faith remaining safe, could be disputed on either side. For it both knew what St. Augustine left written in book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapter 22 — that nothing is better known than this sin for preaching, nothing more secret for understanding; and it had resolved to keep to the footsteps of the ancient Councils, which concerning the mysteries of the faith were accustomed to explain, and to hand down as things to be believed under pain of anathema, nothing else than what seemed necessary for preserving the faith and confuting heresies. And let these few things about the calumnies and lies of the adversaries suffice in this place.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Refutantur calumniae, et mendacia haereticorum. Sed placet, antequam ad refutationem hujus erroris veniamus, breviter annotare CAPUT VI. 403 calumnias vel mendacia, ineptias, et contra¬ dictiones, quibus adversarii suas disputatio¬ nes in hac materia, ut in aliis omnibus, exornarunt. Primus, Lutherus in libro adversus execra- bilem Bullam Antichristi, disserens de3. art. : (i De hac, inquit, re probabiliter disputavi, nec hodie certus sum. » Et similia dicit de quarto, et tamen post unam paginam ita scribit : « Ego his scriptis testor, me omnia damnata per Bullam istam execrabilem , confiteri pro Catholicis dogmatibus. » Et jam antea initio libri sic praefatus fuerat : « Assero et amplector fiducia tota spiritus mei articulos per eam damnatos, asseren- dosque pronuntio omnibus Christianis sub poena aeternae maledictionis. » Itaque fomitem retardare animum exeun¬ tem a corpore, ab ingressu coeli, etiamsi nullum adsit actuale peccatum (hic enim erat art. 3.) Lutherus habet pro Catholico dogmate, et vult haberi ab omnibus sub poena maledictionis aeternae : et tamen ad¬ huc incertus est, quid agatur cum tali anima, retardetur necne ab ingressu coeli, et solum probabiliter disputat. Idem Lutherus in assertione omnium arti¬ culorum suorum, art. 2. imponit sancto Au¬ gustino, quod dixerit peccatum actu trans¬ ire, reatu manere. Et rursus in extrema disputatione : « Concludamus, inquit, cum pulcherrimo verbo Augustini : Peccatum , inquit, remittitur in Baptismo, non ut non sit, sed ut non imputetur. Ecce est, et rema¬ net peccatum, sed non imputatur. » At nus¬ quam sic loquitur S. Augustinus, neque unum locum adhuc notare potuerunt adver¬ sarii, libi sanctus Augustinus dicat, pecca¬ tum actu manere, non reatu, vel esse in ho¬ mine, sed non imputari. Dicit quidem con¬ cupiscentiam manere post Baptismum, sed addit, eam non solum non imputari, sed ne¬ que esse peccatum, nisi ratio victa illi cedat. Testimonia S. Augustini habentur lib. i. de nuptiis et concupiscentia, cap. 23. et 27. Philippus Melanchthon in Apologia Con¬ fessionis Augustanae, in defensione articuli secundi, qui est de peccato originali, gravi¬ ter quaeritur de Scholasticis , in haec verba : « Ilos morbos, qui maxime adversantur legi Dei, non animadvertunt Scholastici , imo tribuunt interim humanae naturae integras vires, ad diligendum Deum super omnia. » Et paulo post : a Quod si hos tantas vires ha¬ bet natura humana, ut per se possit diligere Deum super omnia, ut confidenter affirmant Scholastici, quid erit peccatum originis ? quorsum autem opus erit gratia Christi, si nos possumus fieri justi propria justitia ? » At post unam vel alteram pagellam oblitus sui, Scholasticos contrarium sentire dicit : « Itaque, inquit, vetus definitio, cum inquit, peccatum esse carentiam justitiae, detx-ahit non solum obedientiam inferiorum virium hominis, sed etiam detrahit notitiam Dei, fiduciam erga Deum, timorem et amorem Dei, aut certe vim ista efficiendi detrahit. Nam et ipsi Theologi in scholis tradunt ista non effici sine certis donis et auxilio gratiae.» Non igitur Scholastici tribuunt homini post lapsum integras vires ad diligendum Deum, et justificationem, si sentiunt ista non effici sine certis donis et auxilio gratiae. Idem Philippus in locis communibus editis anno 1322. titulo de peccato : « Nec est, inquit, quod de stultis illis x-elationibus in peccato disputemus, pravus affectus, pravusque cor¬ dis motus est contra legem Dei peccatum. » At in locis iisdem, editis posteriore tempore, titulo eodem docet, formale peccati esse reatum ; reatum esse 1’elationem : « Recte, inquit, eruditi sciunt, universaliter formale peccati esse reatum. Sed haec relatio alicui malo accidit, etc. » Idem etiam paulo post : « Monachi, inquit, Jnerudite omiserunt re¬ atum, et dixerunt formale peccati esse defe¬ ctum, et hunc tolli in renatis, ac manere materiale, quod intelligebant appetitiones ipsas conditas a Deo, quae sunt res bonae, sed quid dicerent, non intellixerunt, etc. » Multa sunt in his paucis verbis errata. Primum, idem Philippus, qui in locis priori¬ bus reprehendebat Scholasticos, quod rela¬ tiones, id est, reatum in peccatis agnosce¬ rent, in locis posterioribus defendit ipse reatum, et relationes adversus Scholasticos. Deinde, repugnat aperte Luthero, in cujus verba juraverat. Lutherus enim in assertione secundi articuli, reprehendit Scholasticos, quod concupiscentiam in renatis dixerint esse defectum. Philippus vero eosdem re¬ prehendit, quod rem eamdem negaverint esse defectum. Tertio, mentitur evidentissime, nisi forte Scholasticos non legerit, et non tam quod ipsi scripserunt, quam quod ipse de illis somniavit, confutare decreverit. Nam Scho¬ lastici, sive Monachi, adeo non omiserunt reatum, ut Scotus et Durandus vix aliud, quam reatum, propxde peccatum esse dixe- LIBER V. ini rint ; sanctas autem Thomas tametsi praeter reatum, agnoscit etiam maculam , tamen reatum nullo modo omisit, ut perspicuum est ex 1. 2. quaest. 81. art. 3. ad 2. ubi dict, peccatum originis per Baptismum tolli, quoad reatum, et remanere quoad fomitem. Denique , illud etiam est apertissimum mendacium, quod Monachi dicant, concu¬ piscentiam in renatis non esse defectum, sed rem bonam, id est, appetitiones, ut sunt a Deo conditae. Ista enim nulli Monachi Ca¬ tholici unquam dixerunt, sed omnes summo consensu docent, post Baptismum in renatis manere concupiscentiam rebellem, et repug¬ nantem legi mentis, et hanc esse malam, et morbum, ac defectum, non tamen pecca¬ tum proprie dictum, nisi rationalis voluntas desideriis ejus assensum praebeat. Joannes Calvinus lib. ii. Institut. cap. 1. §. 9 : « Frigidum, inquit, et stultum est, corruptelam quae ex peccato Adae manet, et peccatum istud esse sensualitatem, vel ad motus sensualitatis restringere. In quo cras¬ sam inscitiam detexit Petrus Lombardus, qui sedem quaerens et investigans, dixit in carne esse peccatum originis, Paulo teste , non quidem proprie, sed quia in carne magis apparet. » Sed in his verbis Calvinus aut mentiri, et imponere simplicioribus voluit, aut Petrum Lombardum non legit, vel non intellexit. Nam Petrus Lombardus nusquam peccatum originis ad motus sensualitatis restrinxit ; quin potius docuit in illis moti¬ bus consistere non posse , quia esset actuale non originale. Sic»enim loquitur in ii. lib. Senten. dist. 30. Iit. G : « Nunc supercst vi¬ dere, quid sit ipsum originale peccatura , Quod cum non sit actuale, non est actus, sive motus animae, vel corporis. » Deinde idem Petrus non quaerebat sedem peccati originis, cum dixit illud esse in carne, sed causam. Nam distinet. 30. litt. B. proponit quaestiones a se tractandas, et dicit esse tres. Quid sit peccatum originale, quare di¬ catur originale , et quomodo traducatur. Quibus postea quartam addit distin. 32. litt. A : quomodo dimittatur in Baptismo. Quae¬ nam autem sit ejus sedes , nusquam propo¬ nit, nusquam tractat, sed ubique tanquam notum assumit, esse animam. Nam ut ipse dicit distin. 31. Iit. C. culpa non potest esse in re irrationali. Itaque cum dicit , peccatum esse in carne non intelligit esse in carae, tanquam in sede, vel subjecto, ut Calvinus somniat, sed tan¬ quam in causa, quia videlicet per concupi¬ scentiam carnalem traducitur. Sic enim ipse loquitur distin. 31. litt. B. « Quae dicitur manere in carae, non quia in anima sit, sed quia per corruptionem carnis inanima sit.» Et lit. D : « Caro quae in concupiscentia libidi¬ nis seminatur, nec culpam habet, nec actum culpae , sed causam. » Denique quidquid Petrus Lombardus dicit, id totum ex sanctis Patribus, Ambrosio et Augustino probat. Quare Calvinus dum Petrum Lombardum crassae inscitia; reprehendit. Ambrosium et Augustinum crassa; inscitia; reprehendit. Sed ista tanta calumniandi , vel mentiendi libido nulli magis , quam auctori proprio apud aequos judices nocet. Jam vero Petrus Martyr in commentario 5. cap. ad Roman. ut se in hac re, sicut in caeteris, falsum Martyrem esse probet, scri¬ bit, sententiam illam suam de peccato ori¬ ginis, esse etiam S. Augustini, et S. Ansel- mi, S. Thomae, Sr Bonaventurse, et Scoti. Quod certe falsissimum est ; nullum enim testimonium horum Doctorum proferri po¬ terit, quo probetur, morbos, qui supersunt in regeneratis, per se esse peccata, et i’eos mortis aeternae facere posse. Certe sanctus Augustinus, quem alii secuti sunt, in pluri¬ mis locis, quae postea citabuntur, contrarium disertis verbis affirmat. Martinus Kemnitius in Examine 3. sess. Concilii Tridenti ni, praeter illud incredibile paradoxum, sive potius Illyrici et Manichaei delirium , quo docet, ipsum embryonem nondum animatum habere veram et pro¬ priam peccati rationem , omnino tragice exagitat, quod vir doctissimus Andradius dixerat, in Concilio Tridentino non esse de¬ finitum, in quo posita esset propria i'atio peccati originalis, et ideo de hac re, salva fide, adhuc in scholis liberas esse disputan¬ tium opiniones. Atque hinc idem Kemnitius colligit a Concilio Tridentino libertatem esse relictam defendendi sententias omnes , quamvis profanas et cum sacris Scripturis aperte pugnantes. « Ad perpetuam (inquit pag. 436.) rei memoriam notum sit toti orbi Christiano , profanam Pighii sententiam (ne quid dicam durius) in decreto Tridentino non esse vel improbatam, vel damnatam, sed relictam esse eum aliis profanis Schola¬ sticorum de peccato originali disputationi¬ bus sub opinandi libertate. » At si Concilium diligenter legatur, facile apparebit, et verum esse quod Andradius scripsit, et tamen pro- CAPIT VII. fanas omnes opiniones tum Pigliii, tum ali¬ orum, a Concilio Tridentino fuisse damnatas. Siquidem eorum, quae ad rationem peccati originalis pertinent, quaedam ad fidem Ca¬ tholicam necessaria sunt, quaedam sine ullo fidei detrimento ignorari possunt. Concilium ergo definivit ea, quae prioris generis erant, ut peccatum originis non solum morbum, sed etiam peccatum vere, proprieque dictum esse, contra errores Zwinglii. Item in homi¬ ne inhaerere, ac proinde non substantiam esse, sed accidens, contra Illyrici somnia. Rursus non unum in omnibus, sed unicui¬ que proprium in esse, contra sententiam minus rectam Pighii et Catharini ; nec solum in infidelium, sed etiam in fidelium filiis lo¬ cum habere, contra haeresim Buceri, Marty¬ ris et Calvini. Denique per Baptismum ita deleri, ut in recens baptizatis nihil maneat quod habeat veram peccati rationem, contra communem Lutheranorum omnium Catho¬ licae fidei repugnantem doctrinam. His autem erroribus explosis, atque dam¬ natis, noluit idem Concilium subtiliores Scho¬ lasticorum quaestiones excutere, quae salva lide, in utramque partem disputari poterant. Nam et sciebat, quod sanctus Augustinus in lib. i. de moribus Ecclesiae, cap. 22. scri¬ ptum reliquit, nihil esse hoc peccato ad prae¬ dicandum notius, nihil ad intelligendum se¬ cretius : et vestigiis veterum Conciliorum inhaerere decreverat, qui de mysteriis fidei, nihil aliud explicare, et sub anathematis poe¬ na credenda tradere consueverant, nisi quod ad fidem conservandam, et haereses confu¬ tandas necessarium videbatur. Atque haec pauca de adversariorum calumniis et men¬ daciis hoc loco sufficiant.