Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 14: That Baptism Does Not Make Men Unable to Sin
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Baptismi, the second general controversy on the sacraments. 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 we come to the effects of Baptism which the adversaries feign. And since almost all the things which would have to be said here belong properly to other places, and are treated here only because of the canons of the Council of Trent on Baptism, we will touch on the matter only very briefly, setting down as many propositions as there are canons of the council.
Let the first proposition, then, be: Baptism does not bring it about that the baptized cannot lose grace, unless they refuse to believe. This is had expressly in canon 6 of the council. And some things are to be noted briefly. First, that there were once two errors among the ancients. One was of Jovinian, who, as Jerome relates, book 2 against Jovinian, and Augustine, book On Heresies, chapter 82, taught that a man truly baptized cannot sin any more, and that if perhaps he sinned, he had not been baptized except with water. His chief argument was those words, 1 John 3: “Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” And 1 John 5: “Whosoever is born of God, sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him.” Jerome refutes this error carefully in the place noted; and surely the divine Scriptures meet it everywhere, as that of Romans 11, “Thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear,” and so on; and Hebrews 6, “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated,” and so on; and 2 Peter 2, “It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice,” and so on. Lastly, in Acts 8 we read openly that Simon believed and received Baptism, and yet in the same place we read of his fall. Further, the testimonies from the letter of John are to be taken in the composite sense, as that too of Matthew 7, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit”: namely, so long as the tree remains good. For John wills only to show that true justice and charity cannot stand with mortal sin, and so that he is not just who does evil. So Augustine expounds it, tractate 5 on the letter of John, and Jerome, book 2 against Jovinian.
The other error was of certain men who, as Augustine relates, book 21 of the City of God, chapter 25, taught that the baptized cannot be damned even if they live most wickedly, provided they do not withdraw from the Catholic Church. Augustine refutes this error in the same place from the clearest testimonies of the Scriptures; and besides he wrote a whole book against this error, which is titled On Faith and Works. The chief Scriptures are: Romans 8, “If you live according to the flesh, you shall die”; 1 Corinthians 6, “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor thieves, nor adulterers,” and so on, “shall possess the kingdom of God.” And like things are had in Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Timothy 6, and elsewhere; all of which are said to the baptized, as is plain from the same places.
Note second that both errors have been in some part renewed in this our age. For John Calvin renewed the former error, who taught that a man once truly justified can never fall from grace and salvation. For in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 7 on Baptism, he says that by Baptism, as by God's handwriting, we are made more certain of the perpetual grace of adoption; and in book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, sections 11 and 12, he teaches that true faith once had cannot be lost, and is a gift proper to the elect. But the refutation of this error does not belong to the present place; for he does not ascribe this to the power of Baptism but to predestination. Meanwhile Calvin's opinion fights most openly with the Scriptures, since in Acts 8 Simon Magus believed and was baptized, and a little after fell from faith and charity. And besides, if what Calvin will were true, there would never have been any apostates, nor would any heretics have come from among Catholics; which fights not only with the consent of the whole world, but also with the Scriptures: Acts 20, “Of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them”; 1 Timothy 1, “Some have made shipwreck concerning the faith”; 1 Timothy 4, “In the last times some shall depart from the faith”; and chapter 6, “The desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith”; and 1 John 2, “They went out from us.”
Luther renewed the latter error, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, where he has those very words which the council condemned in its canon 6. Nor do his disciples disagree with that opinion, though they do not approve the manner of speaking. For that proposition, “A man cannot be damned unless he refuses to believe,” can be understood in three ways. First, so that the sense is that there is no sin truly and in itself mortal except unbelief. And this the adversaries do not teach; nay, on the contrary, they contend that all works, even the best done, are mortal sins if they are judged by God according to the rigour of justice. Hence Chemnitz, in the censure of canon 6 of the Council of Trent, proves from the Scriptures that many sins besides unbelief can damn a man.
Second, so that the sense is that all sins are so joined with unbelief, and on the other hand faith so joined with justification, that faith cannot stand with any mortal sin; and so that he who has faith has no sin and cannot perish, and on the contrary whoever sins by that very fact lacks faith. Which indeed is like what the Catholics say of charity; for charity in truth cannot stand with mortal sin, and so no one perishes with charity, and no one is saved without charity. Chemnitz will have this to be the sense of that Lutheran proposition, in part 2 of the Examination, page [number illegible] and following, where he says that Luther never held that present grace is not lost through any mortal sin whatever, but held that a man can at once return to grace through true faith. For as sins destroy faith, so faith coming to life again destroys all sins.
In the third way that proposition can be understood so that the sense is that a man can, at the same time as he sins, keep faith, and by this not lose the present grace of God; because although sins by their nature would make a man guilty and God's enemy, yet faith remaining in the heart brings it about that they are not imputed and do not damn. Chemnitz admits that this sense is Epicurean, and that the proposition was deservedly condemned by the council in this sense; which Calvin too admits in the Antidote to this canon 6. For by it leave is given to baptized men to commit any sins whatever, provided they at the same time believe that they are not imputed to them. But in no way does Chemnitz grant that this was Luther's mind.
Note third that that opinion of Luther's was most rightly condemned by the council. For it was both said by Luther in the third sense, though Chemnitz will not have it so; and besides it is heretical even in the second sense, which Chemnitz and Calvin admit. And first, that that was Luther's mind is plain from these places. In the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, after he had said that a baptized man cannot be damned unless he refuses to believe, he adds: “No sins can damn him but unbelief alone; all the others, if faith in the divine promise made to the baptized returns or stands, are swallowed up in a moment by that same faith.” So he. Where you see him say, “if faith returns or stands.” Luther thought, then, that faith can stand while one sins, and that through that faith sins are not imputed even while they are done; although Chemnitz, relating this opinion in bad faith, left out that phrase, “or stands.” Likewise in the book On Christian Liberty: “Nothing,” he says, “makes the person good but faith, nor evil but unbelief.” Likewise in the question whether works conduce to salvation, this is the first assertion: “As nothing justifies but faith, so nothing sins but unbelief.” The second assertion: “Justification properly is faith in the fourth mode; and sin is unbelief.” Likewise in the book On Monastic Vows: “Of one who believes in Christ no works are so evil that they can accuse and damn him.” Lastly, in the first sermon on the Gospel of the Monday of Pentecost, on that, “God so loved the world”: “Where there is faith,” he says, “there no sin harms.” And he adds that God makes nothing of the sins of believers in himself, as a father makes nothing of the trifles of infants at play. Where he speaks openly of sins which are done in act, and will have them not harm, because they are covered or excused through faith.
And that the proposition is false even in the second sense is plain, because it fights with Paul, 1 Corinthians 13: “If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” Where Paul teaches that faith can be without charity, and so that a man can be damned with true faith. They answer that Paul speaks of the faith of miracles, not of justifying faith. On the contrary: because the faith of miracles is nothing else than an excellent Catholic faith, and justifying in its own way. Hence Paul, below, speaking of the same faith, counts it with the other theological virtues: “Now,” he says, “there remain faith, hope, charity.” And in this place he says, “If I should have all faith.” Besides, according to the Lutherans there is no reason why justifying faith itself cannot remain with sin. For it is nothing else than trust in the divine mercy, as they themselves everywhere define it. And what prevents someone, while he steals or commits adultery, from trusting that God will not impute that action as sin? Further, if a sin already done can remain with faith, which yet is truly sin and cleaves in the justified, as they themselves say, why not also a sin that is being done? Surely, if sin could not stand with faith, this would not be by reason of the time, past or present, but by reason of the malice and foulness of the sin itself. But the sin already done, with all its malice and foulness, remains while faith is present; therefore it can also be done while faith is present. Wherefore they are forced, if they will not destroy their own principles, to admit with Luther that third sense, which yet they admit to be Epicurean and deservedly condemned by the Council of Trent.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAIM T \IV.
Quod ll<i])t(Sinusnonfacial lioinincs
iniitrccabilrs.
\unc ;id cnecUis naplismi, (|iios ;idvcrs;irii coiw
liiigunl, vcni;iiii4is. Dt ((iioiii;iiii ca ferc o;iiiii.i,(|iiac
\H
DK SACHAMKMO liAI llSMl
liic ilicoiiil;! nsscnl. ;it1 iiiia loca pniprii' i^piMManl .
rl liic soluiu IracliMiUir jtroplcr caiioncs concilii
tritlciitini ilc I{aptisino; suliim lirfvissiiin' rom ;il-
liii^'einus , lot proposilionibus cunslilulis , (luol
sunl concilii c:inoncs.
Sil ii,Mliir prim;i pro|Misilio: l!<i))ti^imis non id
olJicHy nl hai^tizad non jiossint tjratiani hri (niiil-
UTtwisi nolint rrcdon'. llacc expri'Sso li;ili(>Uir
ciiii. (■>. concilii. Sunt aulcin quiicdiini brcvilor;i!i-
nulanila. Primmn riiisso oiim duos crroros ;ipu(l
volercs: Liuis luit .lovuii;ini. (iiii, ul reierunl llic-
ronynuis. lib. 2. coulra .loviniiiuum, cl Aui^iisiiiuis
lib. dc baeresibus, cap. S2. docuil. bominem vere
baplizalum non posse ;implnis peccare. el si forle,
l»ccc;il, non luisso liiuiam, iiisi a(pi;i.Ari;umeiiUim
praccipuum crant illa vcrba. I. Joan. .?. Oninifi
(fui natua est t\v Dco. Ppccalinn noiifacH . qiiid
iiiiincn ipsius in eo niancl, cl non potcst pcccarc.
quoniani cx Dco natus cst. Kl 1. Joan. 5. Qiiinxi-
tus csl ex Dco. non pccctit , seti gencratio Dci
cimscrval cum. llerellil hunc errorem ;i('curales.
llioronymus loco u(jl;ilo: ol ccrle Scriplur;ie divi-
nae passim occurrunl, ul illa Uoman. ! I. Tu fidc
slas. noU altuni sapcrc. scd tiine clc. Kl Ilcbr. 0.
Iinpossibilc cst cos. qui seincl sunl illuniindti clc.
Ki 2. l'clr. 2..]Iclius crat cis non cognosccrcviani
justUiac clc.\)cn\(\uc. Acl. S, apcrtc lc^nmus: Si-
nu)nem crcdidisse, el Biiplismum suseepisso: ol la-
inen ibiJem lOLrimus ejus luiiiam. Porro leslimonia
c\ epislola Joannis accipiendn sunl in scnsu com-
posilo. (]ucmadmodum ol illud. Jbillb. 7. i\on po-
tcsl arbor bona malos fructus faccrc: uimiium
dum miinseril arbor bona. Soiuin onim viill Jo;in-
iics oslciulerc, uon possc consislere vcrani jiisli-
ii;im. cl cli;iril;ilem ciim peccalo morlnli . proindi;
non cssc jusluiu, c]iii ir.;ilc agil. Il;i c.xponiinl Au-
Kuslinus. traclat. li. in opist. Joaunis, cl Hicrony-
miis, lib. 2. in Jovini;inuiii.
Allcr error quoruudam Uiil, qui. ul Auguslinus
relorl lib. 21. dc Civit. Dci, cap. 2.'). docebanl.ba-
Iilizatos non possc damnari, cliamsi perdilissimc
vivercMil, modo ab Ecclcsi;i catholica noii reccde-
rcnt. liorcllit bunc crrorem Auguslinus ibidcm cx.
«larissimis leslimoniis r^criplurarum: cl praelcrea
librum intccrrum scripsil conlra bunc errorcm, qui
inscribitur; Dc fide, cl operibus.Scriplur;ie praeci-
im.ic sunt, liom. 8. Si secuuLlum carncni vixe-
ritis. moricmini. I. Cor. G. ISolite erra,rc: neque
fornicarii , neque furcs. nequc aduUeri ctc. rc-
(jnnm Dei possidcbunl.FA sirnilia babcnlur.Galat.
o.Mphcs. :>. 1. Thcss. 4. 1. Timolli. (>. cl alibi;
«pi;ic omnia dicuulur baplizalis, ut cx iisdeni locis
p.itf'1.
.^ota sccundo, ulrumquc crrorcm ali(]u;i ex par-
te lioc nostro sacculo inslauraluin csse. I\;im prio-
rem crrorein inslaunivil Joan. C;ilvinus. (|ui bonii-
lUMU scmcl verc juslilic;!lum dociiil. non jiosse iiu-
(luiim cxcidere ;i gr;ilia cl salulc. ^am iu Antidolo
concilii Iridenlini, scss. 7. can. 7. de Baplismo
dicil: Baplismo lamqMam Dei chirographo nos ccr-
tioros rcddi dc pcrpelua adoplionis gratia: ct lib.
:5. Instit. cap, 2. § II. cl 12. doccl , vcram fidein
scinel babilam aiuilli non possc , csscquc donum
clcctorum [iropriuiii. Sed refulatio islius erroris ,
iion csl praesoidis loci: non cnini id ipse Iribuil
virUili Hiiptisnii, scd prae,deslin;itioni. Inlcrim re-
|)iii,Mi;il Scri|)liiris apiM-lissime (^iilvini senliMilia.cuiu
Acl. S. Siuioii iiiiigus credidcril et bapli/alus Uio-
ril, el iKiulo posl a lidc cl cliaritale c\cidcril. Kl
liriietcrea, si veruin csscl, quod viilt C;ilvinus,nulli
iiiiqiiam Uiisseiit ;i|i()sl;il:ie. iiec iilli e\ c;illiolicis
liiicrelici li(M'(Mil, (piod iiou solum pugiuit (miiii lo-
liiis orbis tcrriic conscnsu. scd ctiaincum Scri])tii-
ris Acl. 20. ICx vofiis ijisis cxurqcnl, viri lofjucn-
lcs pcrvcrsa. lU abdiicaiU discijiiUos posl, se. \.
iimolh. 1. Qiiidani circa fidcmnaufragavcrunt.
1. Timolli. i. Innovissimis lcniporibus tiiscedcnl
quidain a fidc. Kl c;ip. (>. liadix omnium nialo-
rumcsl cupidUas: quam qiiidam appclentcs.cr-
ravcriint a jlde. Kt 1. Joan. l.Kx nobis exierunt.
PoslerioriMU crrorcm iiist;iur;ivil Luthcrus in lib.
dc c;i]Uivit. r>;il)yl. cap. dc nii])lismo, ubi babcl illa
il)s;i verl)a,([u;ic concilium in suo c;inonc (J.diimna-
vil. Ncc ab ea scnUMilia discordant cjus discipuli,
elsi moduni loiiiuMidi noii probcnl. Tribus cnim
modis polesl iiilelligi illii proposilio: Non polcsl
homo tlamnari, nisi nolU crcdcre, Primo, ul scn-
sus sil.uullum essc pccciiUim vcrc,el in sc morlalc,
nisi incrcdulitiilem. El lioc non doccnt advcrsa-
rii, iinmo c contr;irio contcndunl oinnia opcra, cl-
iam 0])Umc faela csse ])cccata mortalia. si secun-
dum rigorcm iusUliae judicenlura Deo.Undc Kem-
nilius in censura canouis 0. concilii tridcnlini,
probnt cx Scripluris, multa ])cccala damnarc pos-
sc hominem practer incrcdulitalem.
Sccundo, ut seusus sit, pcccata omnia ita cssc
conjuucla cum iiilldelitalc. el conlra, fidcm ilii
conjunclam esse cum juslificationc, ut non possit
fides consislcrc cum ullo pcccalo mortali: proindc
qui babet lidem nullum habcrc peccalum, ncc
posse pcrirc, ct contrii quicumquc pcccat, hoc ip-
so carere fidc. Quod quidcm similc cst ci, quod
caliiolici dicunt dc cliiirilalc: Charitas enim rcve-
ra uon polcst consislere cum pcccato mortiili; ct
ideo nemo pcrit cum cliarilate, ct ncmo salvatur
sine charitalG. Hunc seiisum vult essc Remnilius
illius Lulheranae proiiosilionis in 2. part. Exami-
nis pag. 2n. cl scqueutibus, udi dicit, Lulhcrum,
luimquam scusissc non amilli graliam praescntcm
per quolibel peccalum morliilc , scd id scnsisso
possc homincm per veram fidcm slalim rcdirc nd
nraliam. Ut enim pcccala dcstruunl fidcm.ita fidcs
i-evivisccns dcslruil onmia pcccala.
Terlio modo potesl intclligi ca proposilio, ut
scnsus sit, possc hominem simul dum pcccat rctj-
ncrc fidcm, cl pcr boc non amillcrc Dci graliam
priiesentem; quiii lic(!t pcccala cx nalura sua ho-
miiiem rcum facerenl, el Dci inimicura, tamcn fi-
des pcrmancns in cordc fiicil, nc imputentur, et
non damnenl. llunc scnsum faleliir Rcmnitius
esse Epicurncum. et mcrilo damnalam a concilio
Ciim proposilionem in hoc sensu, quod eliam fiile-
lur Calvinus in AnUdoto hujus canonis 0. Ifinc
enim dalur liccnlia bominibus bapUzntis palrandi
quacvis pcccala, modo simul credanl ca sibi non
impulari.Scd nullo modo RcmniUus conccdit hanc
fuissc mculem Lutberi.
Nola Tcrtio. reclissiiuc c concilio damualam cs-
ijRi:a i>iU3ius
1^7
se illnm Liilhori scnlcnliam. Nam cl dicta cst a Lu-
llicro in scnsu lcrlio, liccl nolit Ivcninilius:ci i^rac-
lorea liacretica csl ctiani in sccundo scnsu. qucin
Kcmnilius, ct Oalvinus admillunt. Ac Priinum
fuissc illam mcnlcm Luthcri, patct cx his locis.
In lib. de Uabyl. captivit. cap. de Baplisino, posl-
quam dixcrat homincm baptizatum non posscdam-
nari, nisi nolit credcrc. suhjungit: Niilla peccala
eunipossunt damnare, nisi sola increduliias:
caelerea omnia si redeat, vel stet fides in pro-
viissionem divinam baptizalo factam, in mo-
'inento al)sorbenlur per eandem fidem. Ilaoc illc.
TJbi vidcs euin diccrc, si redeal velslet fides. Pu-
tavit igilur Lulhcrus posse stare fidcm, dum quis
pcccal, ct pcr cam fidcm, pcccata non impulari,
etiam dum fiunl: quamquam Rcmnitius non bona
lido hanc sentcntiam rclcrens, omisit illud: vel
slet fidcs. Ilcm in lib. dc libcrlate chrisliann; IVo?i
facit. inquil. personam bonam nisi fides, nec
inalam, nisi incredulilas. Ilcm in quacstionc;
An opera faciant ad salulem. hacc esl prima asser-
lio: llt niliiljuslificat nisi fides, ila niliil peccat,
nisi incredulilas. Secunda asscrtio: juslificatio
proprie est fides quarlo modo:etpeccatumincve-
duiitatis. Ilem in lib. de volis monasticis : Cre-
denlis in Cliristum nulla sunt tam mala opera,
quae possint illum accusare et damnave. Dcni-
que in \, sermone super evanirclium lcriae 2.pcn-
lecostes supcr illud: Sic Deus dilexit mundmn.
Vbifides, inquil. est. ibinullum nocet peccalum..
Et addit: sic Dciim nihil facore pcccala crc(i(;iili-
um in se, quomodo paler nihil facit nugas hidcn-
lium infanlium. Ubi aperle loquitur de pcccalis,
quae aclu fiunt, et vult ea non nocerc, quia pcr
lidcm lcgunlur, vel cxcusantur.
Ouod aulcm etiam in secundo scnsu falsa sil
ea propositio, palcl, quia repugnat Paulo, 1. Cor.
■l.'}.Si habucro omnem fidem,ita utmonlestrans-
feram , charitalem autem non habuero. nilUl
mihi prodest. Ubi Paulus docct, posse lidcm esse
t^ine cliarilale. et proinde hominem cum vcra lidc
damnari. Hcspondet. Paulum loqui dc fidc mira-
culorum, non de fide juslificanlc. Conlra, ([uia fi-
des miraculorum, nihil esl aliud nisi exccllcns fi-
dcs calholica, cl juslificans suo modo. Unde Pa-
ulus inlra dc eadem fide loquens, annumcrat cam
aliis virtulibus thcologicis: Nunc, inquil. manet
fides. spes. charilas. El hoc loco dicil: Si habue-
ro omncm fidern. Practerca, secundum Lulhcra-
nos nulla esl ralio cur non possit fides ipsa justi-
ticans mancre cum pcccalo. INam nihil cst aliud,
nisi fiducia divinac miscricordiae, ut ipsi passim
definiunt. Quid aulcm prohibct, quo minus possit
aliquis dum furatur,vel mocchalur,confidcrc,Dcum
non impulalurum cam actioncm ad pcccalum. Dc-
si polcsl cum fidc mancrc pcccalum raclum, qiiod
liuncn vere peccatum cst. cl in justifioalis hacrn.
ul ipsi dicunl. cur non ctiam poccalum, (piud sil?
I^crtc si pcccatum noii possct consislcrf; cum lidc,
id non cssct ralione tcmporis practcrili.vcl prac-
.sentis, scd rationc malitiae, cl focditalis ipsius
l)cccali. Al pcccatum jam factum cuin tola sua
malitia, ct foeditalc manct praescnlc lidc; Ergo li-
eri etiam polcst praescnlo lidc. Quarc cogunlur,
si principia sua dcstrucrc noliint, adinittcrc i('r-
tium illum scnsum cum Luthcro: (picm lauicn
latonlur Epicuraeum cssc ac nicrilo danmalum u
concilio Iridcntino.