Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book VI: The Punishments of Original Sin
Chapter 4: The fifth opinion is refuted, and it is asserted that little ones dying without Baptism are not to be punished with the punishment of sense, or of sensible fire
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book VI. 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).
We have sifted the first and second opinions, and refuted them from the divine writings and the ecclesiastical tradition. Now we shall come to the other extreme — that is, to the fifth opinion — which is so far from promising eternal life to little ones dying without Baptism that it will even have them punished with every kind of punishment, both of loss and also of sense, both in soul and in body. Which opinion indeed seems not to be openly reproved by the Catholic Church; yet it is everywhere rejected in the schools, and to us also it seems improbable. And so it can be refuted by the following arguments.
The first is taken from the divine writings. For we read in the Apocalypse, chapter 18: As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her. But little ones have in no way glorified themselves, nor been in any delicacies; therefore they deserve no torment and sorrow. Likewise in Isaias, last chapter, and Mark 9, the fire is joined with the worm: Their worm, says he, dieth not, and the fire is not extinguished. But it is agreed that little ones will suffer no punishment from the bite of the worm — that is, from the conscience of an evil work pricking and afflicting the mind; therefore it is also credible that they will suffer no punishment of material fire.
The second argument is taken from the decretal epistle of Innocent III, a most grave and most learned Pontiff, which is had in book 3 of the Decretals, under the title On Baptism and Its Effect, chapter Majores — where we read that the punishment of original sin is the lack of the divine vision, but of actual sin, the torment of perpetual gehenna. In which place, by the torment of gehenna cannot be understood anything but the punishment of sense, which is opposed to the punishment of loss. Nor is this sentence repugnant to the testimonies of the Fathers who wrote that little ones are tortured with eternal punishments in gehenna; for they take the punishment of gehenna for the general punishment, which can be referred both to the punishment of loss, and to the punishment of sense, and to both together; but Innocent preferred to employ the torment of gehenna not for the genus of the infernal punishments, but for the one species.
The third argument is taken from the testimonies of the holy Fathers, which cannot be more rightly reconciled with the testimonies cited by us above than if we say that little ones do not suffer in gehenna the punishment of sense, but of loss only. St. Gregory Nazianzen — a man beyond controversy most learned, and most diligent in preserving entire the dogmas of the faith — in the oration on Holy Baptism, before the middle, says that there are three kinds of men dying without Baptism: of whom some have despised Baptism; others lost it through their own negligence; others — that is, infants — lacked it through the negligence of others. Concerning the punishment of all these after this life he thus pronounces: “I judge it will come to pass that the first will pay the penalties both of their other crimes and of Baptism despised; the second will pay penalties indeed, but lighter, as men who missed Baptism not so much by depravity of mind as by folly; the last, finally, will be visited by the just judge neither with heavenly glory nor with punishments — seeing that, though not sealed with Baptism, they yet lack wickedness, and rather suffered than caused this loss. For not everyone who is not worthy of punishment straightway also merits honor; just as not everyone who is unworthy of honor straightway also deserves punishment.” This holy Doctor does not deny that little ones are struck with the punishment of loss; rather he confesses it, when he says that they are unworthy of the heavenly honor; but he denies that they are struck with the other punishment, which is called of sense, since that is properly owed to wickedness, which they lack. St. Ambrose — or whoever was the author of the commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul which bear the name of Ambrose — explaining chapter 5 to the Romans, writes that all sinned in Adam as in the mass; and yet a little below adds that no one is punished with the second death in gehenna unless he acquire it for himself by his own evil acts. Where, since he confesses that all sinned, he cannot deny that all likewise are to be punished, unless they obtain remission; but he removes a definite kind of punishment from those who have deserved nothing by their own acts; and that kind of punishment can be no other than the punishment of sense. St. Augustine, book 3 On Free Choice, chapter 23: “They say: of what sort will he be reckoned in the future judgment, for whom there is neither place among the just, since he did nothing rightly, nor among the evil, since he sinned nothing? To whom it is answered that, for the complex of the universe and the most ordered connection of the whole creation, whether through places or through times, no man of whatever sort can be created superfluously, where not one leaf of a tree is created superfluously; but that assuredly it is superfluous to inquire about the deserts of him who has deserved nothing. For it is not to be feared that, while there could be a life which is a certain middle between right deed and sin, the sentence of the judge could not be a middle between reward and punishment.” This sentence St. Augustine nowhere — so far at least as I have read — retracted; and yet, had he judged this should be done, he had great occasion, both in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 9, where he diligently examines these books, and in epistle 28 to Jerome, where he disputes about a certain part of this very chapter 23, in which are had the words we cited a little before. Nor indeed in these words does St. Augustine attribute to little ones a middle place between heaven and the lower world, but a middle sentence between the reward which is owed to those who by their own will merited something of good, and the punishment which is owed to those who by their own will begot punishment for themselves. Wherefore little ones dying without Baptism will not lack the punishment common to original and actual sin, by which the grace of God is lost — which punishment is the lack of the divine vision; but they will be free from that punishment which is proper to actual sin, which is called the punishment of fire, or of sense. Again, the same Augustine, book 5 against Julian, chapter 8 [al. 11], speaks thus: “But I do not say that little ones dying without the Baptism of Christ are to be struck with so great a punishment that it were rather expedient for them not to be born.” And below: “Who would doubt that unbaptized little ones will be in the lightest damnation of all? Which, of what sort and how great it will be, though I cannot define, yet I dare not say that it were rather expedient for them not to exist at all than to exist there.” From this place we gather two things which pertain much to our matter. We have, first, that St. Augustine did not dare to pronounce concerning little ones dying without Baptism that sentence of the Lord — It were better for him, if that man had not been born — although that sentence seems capable of being pronounced concerning all those who are tormented with everlasting fire in gehenna. Next, we understand that St. Augustine never wished to affirm that those little ones are, in species, tortured with the punishment of sense, but only that in general they sustain some punishment. For he does not say only that he cannot define how great that punishment is — which could have been referred to the magnitude alone — but says: “Which, of what sort, and how great it is, I cannot define.” Which words indicate openly enough that Augustine was uncertain about the very species of the punishment. To these comes Peter Lombard, with the whole school of the theologians, who on 2 [al. 4] Sentences, distinction 33, teach with common consent that little ones dying without Baptism are punished in the lower world with the punishment of loss, but not with the punishment of sense — and thereby are altogether free from the torment of corporal fire.
The fourth argument is taken from reason. The first reason: The sin of origin does not take away in man the natural order, but the supernatural — namely, the conversion to God through the supernatural gift of grace. Therefore it is equitable that the punishment of original sin be the privation of a supernatural good, such as is the lack of the vision of God — and not the infliction of a sensible punishment, which injures nature itself. The second reason: On account of a habitual lack of virtues, and a habitual proneness to vices, no one is wont to be punished with a positive and sensible punishment, but only on account of actual fault; for they are not hanged by the magistrate who lack the habit of justice, or who are prone to thefts, but they who in very deed steal; yet they who lack the virtues, and contrariwise are prone to evils, can be rejected as unworthy from attaining some dignity. But the sin of origin is only a habitual fault; for infants, on account of that sin, are habitually turned away from God, and habitually prone to lusting against reason; therefore they can be rejected, as unworthy, from entering the heavenly beatitude, yet they ought not to be punished with the torment of fire and brimstone, which are sensible and positive punishments. The third reason: On account of original sin no penal satisfaction is enjoined in the Church upon men to be baptized, though adults; nor are such men commanded, on account of that sin, to conceive any sadness or sorrow in their mind; therefore it is credible that no sensible punishment answers to it in the world to come, but only the lack, as was said above, of everlasting beatitude.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Itefellitur quinta opinio, atque annentur, par¬ vulas sine Baptismo decedentes, non punien¬ das poena sensus , sive ignis sensibilis. Excussimus primam et secundam senten¬ tiam, easque ex divinis litteris, et Ecclesia¬ stica traditione refutavimus. Nunc ad aliud extremum, id est, ad Quintam sententiam ac¬ cedemus, quae tantum abest, ut parvulis sine Itaptismo decedentibus, vitam adernam promittat, ut etiam eos omni genere poena*, tum damni, tumefiam sensus, et in animo, et in corpore puniri velit. Qua; quidem sen¬ tentia non videtur aperte ab Ecclesia Catho¬ lica reprobata ; rejicitur tamen passim in scholis, et nobis etiam improbabilis esse vi¬ detur. Itaque sequentibus argumentis re¬ futari potest. Primum sumitur cx divinis litteris. Legi- mus enim in Apocalyp. cap. xvm. Quan¬ tum se glorificavit , et in deliciis fuit, tantum date illi tormentum et lucium (l). At parvuli nulla se ratione glorifica verunt, neque in de¬ liciis ullis fuerunt ; nullum igitur merentur tormentum et luctum. Item Isai. ult. et Mare. ix. conjungitur ignis cum verme : 1 'crinis, inquit, eorum non morietur, et ignis non extinguetur (2). Constat autem parvulos nullam passuros poenam ex morsu vermis, id est, ex conscientia mali operis animum pungente, atque affligente; igitur credibile etiam est, nullam esse passuros ignis mate¬ rialis poenam. Alterum argumentum sumitur ex epistola decretali Innocentii III. Pontificis gravissimi, atque doctissimi, qua; habetur in lib. m. decretalium, tit. de Baptismo, ct ejus effe¬ ctu, cap. Majores, ubi legimus, peccati ori¬ ginalis poenam esse carentium visionis divi¬ na;, actualis autem gehenna; perpetua; cru¬ ciatum. Quo loco per cruciatum gehenna; non potest intelligi nisi poena sensus, qrne opponitur p(»;me damni. Neque repugnat luec sententia testimoniis Patrum, qui scri¬ pserunt, parvulos seternis poenis in gehenna torqueri. Illi enim poenam gehenna; acci¬ piunt pro generali supplicio, quod tum ad poenam damni, tum ad poenam sensus, tum ad utramque simul referri potest. Innocen¬ tius autem gehenna; cruciatum non pi'0 ge¬ nere infernalium poenarum, sed pro altera specie usurpare maluit. Tertium argumentum sumitur ex testimo¬ niis sanctorum Patrum, qua; non possunt re¬ ctius conciliari cum testimoniis, qua* sunt a nobis supracitata, quamsi dicamus, parvulos non pati in gehenna poenam sensus, sed so¬ lius damni. S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, vir sine con¬ troversia doctissimus, et in fidei dogmatibus integre conservandis diligentissimus, ora¬ tione in sanctum lavacrum, ante modium, tria genera hominum sine Baptismo dece¬ dentium esse dicit, quorum alii Baptismum contempserint, alii ex negligcnlia propria amiserint, alii, hoc est, infantes, aliorum negligentia illo caruerint. De horum omnium poena post hanc vitam ita pronuntiat : « Exi¬ stimo, inquit, futurum, ut primi quidem cum aliorum scelerum, tum etiam Baptismi contempti pcenas luant : alii autem poenas quidem, sed leviores pendant, ut qui non tam animi pravitate, quam stultitia a Bapti¬ smo aberrarint : postremi denique nec coe¬ lesti gloria, nec suppliciis a justo judice affi- ciantux*, ut pote qui licet Baptismo consig¬ nati non fuerint, improbitate tamen careant, atque hanc jacturam passi potius fuerint, quam fecerint. Neque enim quisquis suppli¬ cio dignus non est, protinus honorem quo¬ que meretur. Quemadmodum nec quisquis honore indignus est, statim etiam poenam promeretur. « Non negat hic sanctus Do- ctor, parvulos plecti poena damni, sed po¬ tius id fatetur, cum ait, eos esse coelesti ho¬ nore indignos : negat autem eos plecti alia poena, qua; dicitur sensus, quoniam ea pro¬ prie improbitari debetur, qua illi carent. S. Ambrosius, vel quisquis auctor fuit commentariorum in epistolas S. Pauli, qua; Ambrosii nomen ferunt, explicans cap. 5. ad Roman. scribit, non omnes in Adamo, tanquam in massa , peccasse , ct tamen paulo in inferius adjungit, neminem puniri morte secunda in gehenna, nisi eam sibi propriis malis actibus acquirat. Ubi cum fateatur, omnes peccasse, non potest negare omnes quoque pariter puniendos, nisi re¬ missionem obtineant. Sed certum pccme genus ab illis removet qui nihil propriis actibus meruerunt. Illud autem poena; ge¬ nus non potest esse aliud, nisi po;na sensus. (!) Apoc. XVIII, 7. - (2) Isai. LXVI, 24; Mare, IX, 43. i 466 LIBER VI. S. Augustinus lib. m. de libero arbitrio, cap. 23. « Dicunt, inquit, qualis in futuro, judicio deputabitur, cui nec inter justos lo¬ cus est, quoniam nihil recte fecit; neque inter malos, quoniam nihil peccavit? quihus respondetur ad universitatis complexum et totius creatura), vel per locos, vel per tem¬ pora ordinatissimam connexionem non posse superfluo creari qualemcumque hominem, ubi solium arboris nullum superfluo creatur : sed sane superfluo quaeri de meritis ejus, qui nihil meruerit, non enim metuendum est, ne vita esse potuerit media quaedam inter recte factum atque peccatum, et sententia judicis media esse non possit, inter praemium, atque supplicium. » Hanc sententiam S. Augustinus nusquam, quod ego quidem legerim, retractavit. Et tamen si hoc faciendum esse censuisset, ha¬ buit magnam occasionem, tum in t. lib. Re¬ tractationum, cap. 9. ubi diligenter exami¬ nat hos libros, tum in epist. 28. ad Hierony¬ mum, ubi disputat de parte quadam hujus ipsius cap. 23. in quo habentur verba, quae paulo ante citavimus. Neque vero in his verbis sanctus Augustinus tribuit parvulis medium locum inter coelum et infernum, sed mediam sententiam inter praemium, quod debetur iis, qui propria voluntate boni ali¬ quid meruerunt, et supplicium , quod iis debetur, qui propria voluntate poenam sibi ipsi pepererunt. Quare parvuli sine Baptismo decedentes non c-arebunt supplicio com¬ muni peccato originali et actuali, quibus amittitur gratia Dei, quas poena est carentia visionis divinae ; sed liberi erunt ab ea pce- na, quae propria est peccati actualis, quae poena igriis, sive sensus appellatur. Rursus idem Augustinus lib. v. in Julia¬ num, cap. 8. sic loquitur : « Ego autem non dico parvulos, sine Christi Baptismate mo¬ lientes, tanta poena esse plectendos, ut eis non nasci potius expediret. » Et infra : «Quis dubitaverit parvulos non baptizatos in dam¬ natione omnium levissima futuros ? quae, qualis erit et quanta erit, quamvis definire non possim, non tamen audeo dicere, quod eis, ut nulli essent, quam ut ibi essent, po¬ tius expediret. » Ex hoc loco Duo quaidam colligimus, qua) ad rem nostram multum pertinent. Habemus primum, non fuisse ausum sanctum Augu¬ stinum pronuntiare de parvulis morientibus sine Baptismo sententiam illam Domini : Melius erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille cum tamen ea sententia de illis omnibus pro¬ nuntiari posse videatur, qui sempiterno igne in gehenna cruciantur. Deinde intelligi- raus, S. Augustinum nunquam affirmare voluisse parvulos illos, in specie, torqueri poena sensus, sed tantum in genere poenam aliquam sustinere. Non enim dicit solum, se definire non posse, quanta sit ea poena, quod referri potuisset ad solam magnitudinem, sed ait : « Quoe, qualis, et quanta sit, definire non possum. » Qua) verba satis aperte indi¬ cant, de ipsa specie poena) Augustinum fuisse incertum . His accedit Petrus Lombardus cum omni schola Theologorum, qui in -4. sent. dist. 33. communi consensu docent, parvulos sine Baptismo morientes puniri apud inferos poena damni, non autem poena sensus, ac per hoc liberos esse omnino a supplicio ignis corporalis. Quartum argumentum sumitur a ratione. Prima ratio. Peccatum originis non tollit in homine ordinem naturalem, sed superna- turalem, conversionem videlicet ad Deum per donum gratia) supernaturale. Igitur a)quum est, ut poena peccati originalis sit privatio boni supernaturalis, qualis est ca¬ rentia visionis Dei, non autem inflictio poe¬ na) sensibilis, qua) naturam ipsam laedit. Secunda ratio. Propter habitualem caren- tiam virtutum, et habitualem pronitatem ad vilia, nemo puniri solet poena positiva, ac sensibili, sed solum propter culpam actua¬ lem, non enim suspenduntur a magistratu, qui carent habitu justitia;; vel qui proni sunt ad furta, sed qui re ipsa furantur : possunt tamen qui carent virtutibus, et c contrario proni sunt ad mala, rejici tanquam indigni ab aliqua dignitate adipiscenda. At pecca¬ tum originis est culpa solum habitualis; sunt enim infantes propter id peccatum habitua- liter aversi a Deo, et habitualiter proni ad concupiscendum contra rationem ; igitur rejici possunt tanquam indigni a coelesti beatitudine adeunda, non tamen puniri de¬ bent supplicio ignis, et sulphuris, qui sunt pomae sensibiles, ac positiva). Tertia ratio. Propter originale peccatum non injungitur in Ecclesia hominibus bapti¬ zandis, quamvis adultis, ulla satisfactio po>- nalis ; neque jubentur ejusmodi homines propter id peccatum, ullam animo tristitiam, doloremve concipere : igitur credibile est, nullum ei respondere sensibilem poenam in saeculo futuro, sed carentiam tantum, ut su¬ pra dictum est, beatitudinis sempiterna). CAPUT V. 467