Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 16: The error of Albert Pighius and Ambrose Catharinus is 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).
There remains the last error to be confuted, which is of Albert Pighius, in the first controversy on the sin of origin, and of Ambrose Catharinus, in the opuscule On the Fall of Man and Original Sin, chapter 6; and it seems also to have been of certain ancients, as Peter Lombard relates, in book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 30. This opinion, then, teaches that the sin of origin is nothing else than that first disobedience of Adam by which the precept about not tasting the tree of knowledge was violated; from which opinion three other sentences are deduced by the same authors. First, that the sin of origin is one and the same in all men. Second, that this one sin was in the first man in very deed, in the rest by imputation. Third, that there is nothing inhering in very deed in little ones which has the true notion of sin; and that the lack of justice, the stain, the guilt, and the like have the notion of punishment, not of fault — unless perhaps improperly, in the way the name of the cause is accommodated to the effect.
This opinion is partly true, partly false. For it is true, and to be asserted and defended against the Lutherans, that the first sin of Adam pertains also to us, and is ours in some manner, as we shall explain a little after; for the Lutherans contend that the depravation of human nature is properly sin, even without relation to the sin of Adam — but of this afterwards. Again it is true that, besides the communication of the sin of Adam, there is in little ones the lack of original justice, guilt, stain, and the like — which Albert and Ambrose, with the other Catholic Doctors, acknowledge. But it is false, and heretical, that the sin of origin is nothing else than the first actual transgression of Adam; and that there is nothing in little ones, proper to each and inhering, which has the true notion of sin. For there stands the most open definition of the ecumenical Council of Trent, in the fifth session, where four sentences are read concerning the sin of origin, which are four arguments against the doctrine of Pighius and Catharinus. First the Council teaches that the sin of origin is poured over by propagation, not by imitation. But what is one in number is not propagated, nor truly poured over; as also that cannot be propagated and poured over which, as soon as done, passed, and now is nowhere, and is nothing. Catharinus answers that that one sin of Adam is propagated and poured over not in itself, which cannot be, but in the punishments which were born from it, and which can, at least improperly and by metonymy, be called sins. But the Council most openly distinguishes the sin of origin, which it says is propagated through generation, from the punishments which are born from the sin itself. For first it condemns the Pelagians, new and old, who denied that the sin of origin is poured over by propagation and blotted out through baptism; then, toward the end of the decree, it warns that the tinder is not properly sin, but is sometimes so named because it is from sin and inclines to sin. Moreover, if the Council had meant that the sin of origin is propagated only by reason of the punishments, it would not have condemned the Pelagians, especially the new ones; for they do not deny that the punishments of sin are propagated and poured over to posterity. Second, the same Council teaches that the sin of origin is present in each as his own. But that one sin of Adam can be common to all; proper to each it cannot be. Third, it teaches that through the grace of baptism there is remitted to little ones all that which has in them the true and proper notion of sin. There will be, then, something in little ones which has the true and proper notion of sin — which certainly cannot be said of the sin of Adam, since that does not inhere in little ones. Last, it teaches that for the sin of origin to be remitted is not for it not to be imputed, but for it to be truly taken away. But if the sin of origin were nothing else than the sin of Adam communicated to posterity by imputation, certainly it would follow that its being remitted is nothing else than its being no longer imputed. We have it, then, that the opinion of Catharinus and Pighius fights, not obscurely, with the Council of Trent. Further, the sentence of the Council is consonant with the holy Scriptures, with the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, and with reason itself. For blessed Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 5, compares the sin of origin, which we draw from the first parent through generation, with the justice which we acquire from Christ through regeneration. But we are not called just, properly and formally, through the justice of Christ, but through that which each has in himself; so, then, neither are we called sinners through the sin which was in Adam, but through that which cleaves in each of us. Next, the Scriptures which we adduced in the first book indicate that the sin of origin is an uncleanness and blemish cleaving to us, which must be washed away through baptism — not the mere imputation of the sin of Adam. The same too the holy Fathers cited above teach. But most openly St. Augustine writes that our original sin is distinct from the actual sin of Adam, as the effect from the cause. For thus he says, book 2 [al. 1] On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 26: “The voluntary sin of the first man is the cause of original sin.” There cleaves, then, in us something which is called original sin, which is not that first disobedience of Adam, but something else, which flowed from it. Finally, the light of reason shows the same. For if little ones had not in themselves a proper and inhering sin, they could not be called absolutely and properly sinners; and moreover they would not need, for the remission of the sin, regeneration, washing, the infusion of grace; but it would be enough if God no longer imputed to them the sin of Adam — which things certainly are manifestly repugnant to the divine Scriptures, the decrees of the Councils, and the testimonies of the Fathers. Nor indeed have the arguments of Catharinus and Pighius such force that on their account one should depart from the common opinion of the theologians; for from the things we shall say in the two following chapters they will be diluted without any trouble.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Refellitur error Alberti Piyhii, et Ambrosii Caiharini. Restat ultimus error confutandus, qui est .Alberti Pighiiin prima controversia de pec¬ cato originis, et Ambrosii Caiharini in opu¬ sculo de lapsu hominis, et peccato originali cap. 0. et videtur etiam fuisse quorumdam veterum, ut refert Petrus Lombardus in n. lib. sent. dist. 30. Hjcc igitur sententia do¬ cet, peccatum originis, nihil esso aliud, nisi illam primam Adami inobedientiam , qua praeceptum de ligno scientiae non gustando violatum est, ex qua sententia deducuntur ab iisdem auctoribus tres alia; sententia;. Prima, peccatum originis esse unum et idem in omnibus hominibus. Secunda, hoc unum peccatum in primo homine re ipsa fuisse, in cajteris per imputationem. Tertia, nihil esse in parvulis re ipsa inha;rens, quod habeat veram peccati rationem, justitia;, maculam, reatum, ct similia, pcen», non culpa; ratio¬ nem habere, nisi forte improprie. Quomodo nomen causic accommodatur effectui. lhec sententia parti m est vera, partim falsa. Verum est enim et adversus Luthera- nos asserendum, ac defendendum, peccatum primum Adami. ad uos etiam pertinere ct CAPI T XVI. nostrum cssc aliquo modo, ut paulo post explicabimus. Lutherani enim depravatio¬ nem naturse humana; proprie peccatum esse contendunt, etiam sine, relatione ad pecca¬ tum Adami. Sed de hoc postea. Rursus ve¬ rum est, praeter communicationem peccati Adami, esse in parvulis carentium justitia; originalis, reatum, maculam et similia. Qua; Albertus et Ambrosius cum caderis Catholi¬ cis Doctoribus agnoscunt. Falsum autem est et haereticum, peccatum originis nihil esse aliud, nisi primam Adac transgressionem actualem; et, nihil esse in parvulis, unicuique proprium et iulnorens, quod habeat veram peccati rationem. Extat enim apertissima Concilii Tridcntini a;cu- menici definitio, in 5. sess. ubi quatuor sen¬ tentia; leguntur de peccato originis, qua; sunt quatuor argumenta contra Pighii, Catharini- que doctrinam. Docet in primis Concilium, peccatum ori¬ ginis propagatione, non imitatione transfun¬ di. At quod est unum numero non propaga¬ tur , nec, vere transfunditur . Sicut etiam propagari et transfundi non potest, quod statim peractum transiit, et jam nusquam est, et nihil est. Respondet Gatharinus, pec¬ catum illud unum Adami propagari et trans¬ fundi non in se, quod fieri nequit, sed in poenis, qua; ex ipso natae sunt, quaeque sal¬ tem improprie, et per metcTnymiam peccata dici possunt. At Concilium apertissime dis¬ tinguit peccatum originis, quod propagari dicit per generationem, a poenis, quae ex ipso peccato nascuntur. Nam primo damnat Pclagianos' novos, ac veteres, qui negabant peccatum originis propagatione transfundi, et per baptismum deleri; deinde sub finem decreti admonet, fomitem non esse proprie peccatum, sed ita nominari interdum, quod sit ex peccato et ad peccatum inclinet. Prae- terea si Concilium voluisset peccatum origi¬ nis propagari solum ratione poenarum, Pe- lagianos, praesertim novos, non condemnas- set ; neque enim illi negant, peccati poenas propagari, et transfundi ad posteros. Docet secundo idem Concilium, peccatum originis inesse unicuique proprium. At pec¬ catum illud unum Adami commune omnibus esse potest, proprium unicuique esse non po¬ test. Tertio docet, per baptismi gratiam remitti parvulis id totum, quod habet in eis veram, ac propriam peccati rationem. Erit igitur aliquid in parvulis, quod veram et propriam peccati rationem habeat, quod certe de pec¬ cato Adami dici non potest, cum illud in parvulis non inhaereat. Postremo docet, peccatum originis remit¬ ti, non esse non imputari, sed vere tolli. At si peccatum originis nihil esset aliud, nisi peccatum Adac posteris per imputationem communicatum, certe sequeretur, illud re¬ mitti nihil esse aliud , nisi non amplius imputari. Habemus igitur sententiam Ca- tharini et Pighii, cum Tridonlino Concilio, non obscure pugnare. Porro Concilii sententia Scripturis sanctis, et veterum Patrum testimoniis, et ipsi etiam rationi consentanea est. Nam R. Paulus in epistola ad Rom. cnp. 5. comparat peccatum originis, quocl a primo parento per generatio¬ nem trahimus cum justitia, quam a Christo per regenerationem acquirimus. Non dici¬ mur autem justi proprie, et tormaliter per justitiam Christi, sed per eam, quam unus¬ quisque in se habet. Sic igitur nec dicimur peccatores per peccatum, quod fuit in Ada¬ mo, sed per id, quod iu unoquoque nostrum lueret. Deinde Scripturae, quas in 1. lib. adduximus indicant, peccatum originis esse immunditiam et labem nobis haerentem , quae per baptismum ablui debeat ; non so¬ lam imputationem peccati Adae. Idem quo¬ que sancti Patres supra citati docent. Sed apertissime S. Augustinus scribit, peccatum nostrum originale esse distinctum ab actuali peccato Adami, ut effectum a causa. Sic enim ait lib. ii. de nuptiis etconcupisc. cap. 26 : « Voluntarium peccatum hominis primi, originalis est causa peccati. » Haeret igitur, in nobis aliquid, et peccatum originale dici¬ tur, quocl non est illa prima Adami inobe- dientia, sed aliquid aliud, quod ab illa ma¬ navit. , Denique rationis lumen idem ostendit. Nam si parvuli non haberent in se proprium et inhaerens peccatum, non possent diei ab¬ solute, ac proprie peccatores. Et praeterea non egerent ad peccati remissionem rege¬ neratione, ablutione, gratiae infusione, sed salis ossei, si Deus illis Adae peccatum non amplius imputaret. Quae certe divinis Scri¬ pturis, Conciliorum decretis, et Patrum te¬ stimoniis manifeste repugnant. Neque vero argumenta Catharini et Pighii tantam vim habent, ut propter ea recedendum sit a com¬ muni Theologorum sententia. Nam ex his quae dicemus in sequentibus duobus capiti¬ bus, nullo negotio diluentur, 44U LIBER Y.