Robert Bellarmine’s Idea of the Child Who Dies Unbaptized in the Commentary on the Summa Theologiae

Traditionally, the theological usage of the word limbo (limbus) refers to both limbus partum and limbus infantium. The former term is applied to the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who died before the birth of Jesus. The latter is applied to the permanent place or state of those children dying unbaptized. In this article, we discuss Bellarmine’s idea of limbus infantium. To consult the concept of limbo, see A. Gaudel, “Limbes,” in A. Vacant, et al. ed., Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, IX, I (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1926), 760–72.

As many early modern theologians, Bellarmine adopted the distinction between God’s special help (auxilium speciale) and God’s general help (auxilium generale). God’s special help is an act of redemption. It is granted by God to man for his attaining an end disproportionate to human natural powers. God’s general help is an act of preservation, which concurs with man’s natural powers to act according to human natural powers. “Auxilium speciale est motio Dei, qua homo ad operationes quae suam naturam aliquo modo superant, efficiendas adiuvatur.” In Summam Ia-IIae q. 109.

Alfred Poncelet, Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus dans les anciens Pays-Bas: établissement de la Compagnie de Jésus en Belgique et ses développements jusqu’à la fin du règne d’Albert et d’Isabelle (Bruxelles: Lamertin, 1927–28), tome 1, 130; Manfred Biersack, Initia Bellarminiana: die Prädestinationslehre bei Robert Bellarmin SJ bis zu seinen Löwener Vorlesungen 1570–1576 (Historische Forschungen im Auftrag der Historischen Kommission der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz; 15), (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989), 44. For the latest study on the Jesuit College in Louvain and its relation with the Faculty of Theology of the University, see Jan Roegiers, “Awkward Neighbours: The Leuven Faculty of Theology and the Jesuit College (1542–1773),” in The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540–1773): Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3–5 December 2009) (Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium, 251), eds. Rob Faesen, S.J. and Leo Kenis (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 153–76.

Lucien Ceyssens, “Bellarmin et Louvain,” in L’augustinisme à l’ancienne faculté de théologie de Louvain (Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium, 111) eds. M. Lamberigts and Leo Kenis (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), 184–85; James Brodrick, S.J., Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar (London: The Catholic Book Club, 1961), 26–27.

Bellarmine mentioned the beginning of his teaching in Louvain in his autobiography, see Xavier-Marie Le Bachelet, Bellarmin avant son cardinalat 1542–1598: correspondance et documents (Paris: Beauchesne, 1911), 451.

In contrast to the Jesuit College, the theological faculty of Louvain University had made a clear option for a positive theology, a theology based upon the Scriptures and the Church Fathers with Augustine taking pride of place. In 1546 Charles V created in Louvain a royal chair of Sacred Scriptures, apart from another chair of scholastic theology being dedicated to the teaching of Peter Lombard’s Sentences. While the teaching of the Scriptures and the Fathers – especially Augustine – was going through a Golden Age, scholastic theology was not considered to be a priority by the theological Faculty. In 1568, the year before Bellarmine’s arrival in the University town, most professors of the faculty taught the Scriptures, and only one theological course related to the scholastic theology was offered (That is Augustine Hunnaeus’ course on the fourth book of the Sentences. But he did not deliver the lectures.) The information is based on the correspondences of the duke of Alva in 1568, See Herman Vander Linden, “L’université de Louvain en 1568,” Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’histoire 77 (1908): 18. It was only in 1596 that Philippe II ordered to replace the Sentences with the Summa as one of the textbooks for students of the University of Louvain (the other textbook was the Bible). A chair for the teaching of Thomistic theology was established at the same time. So Bellarmine was 26 years earlier than the professors in the faculty of theology at Louvain to give lectures on the Summa. For the establishment of the chair of Thomistic theology in the University of Louvain, see Victor Brants, “La creation de la chaire de théologie scolastique et la nomination de Malderus a l’université en 1596,” Analectes pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique 34 (1908): 46–54; and “Deux lettres se rapportant à la substitution de la Somme de saint Thomas aux Sentences de Pierre Lombard dans l’enseignment de la théologie à Louvain en 1596,” Analectes pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique de la Belgique 35 (1909): 370–76. On positive theology in Louvain, see W. François, “Augustine and the Golden Age of Biblical Scholarship in Louvain (1550–1650),” in Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century, eds. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (Library of the Written Word, 20) (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2012), 235–89.

See Brodrick, Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar, 14 and Edward Anthony Ryan, The Historical Scholarship of Saint Bellarmine (Louvain: Bureaux du Recueil, 1936), 27.

“Plus omnino prefecturum aliquem, si duobus mensibus det operam D. Thomae, quam si per multos menses in scripturis et patribus legendis versetur”. Le Bachelet, Bellarmin avant son cardinalat, 506, n. 1 Translation is taken from Brodrick Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar, 29. However, we should point out that Bellarmine’s Thomism, like the Jesuits of his time, is eclectic. For example, between 1582 and 1585, Bellarmine was consulted on the question of the organization of theological courses in the Rome College. His answer is clear and direct: placet. But he did not hide his criticism of Thomas in some theological issues, such as the Immaculate Conception and whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of “latria” (cultu latriae). See Bellarmine’s letters in Le Bachelet, Bellarmin avant son cardinalat, 500 and 505–10.

Le Bachelet, Bellarmin avant son cardinalat, 451 and 464. See also Sebastiaan Tromp, “Conspectus chronologicus praelectionum quas habuit S. Robertus Bellarminus in Collegio S. I. Lovaniensi et Collegio Romano,” Gregorianum 16 (1935): 98–101.

It is interesting to know that Bellarmine never allowed his Louvain lectures on the Summa to be published in his lifetime. The most famous case is that in 1617 he refused the request from Peter Cudsem, a Catholic publisher in Cologne converted from Calvinism, to publish his Louvain lectures on the basis of the students’ class notes. In his letter replying Cudsem’s request, Bellarmine described his commentary on the Summa as incomplete, imperfect and unworthy of publishing. He even requested the nuncio in Cologne to implement his own preference not to publish the commentary under the pain of excommunicating anybody who dared to publish it. For an explanation of Bellarmine’s intention, see Ceyssens, “Bellarmin et Louvain,” 193–94.

This is the version which we used as the main source of this article. Around the end of 1579, Bellarmine reviewed the manuscripts of his Louvain lectures and chose the passages relating with the refutation of Baius’ teachings. These selected texts were edited by the author himself as Refutatio Baii excerpta ex commentariis P. Bellarmini in Summa Divini Thomae. In 1966 Gustavo Galeota S.J. published the whole work of the Refutatio. The part on the child who dies unbaptized is also collected in the Refutatio, although the text is slightly different from the commentary. In this article if the cited text of the commentary can be found in the Refutatio, we will also give the reference to its page numbers in Galeota’s edition in Bellarmino contro Baio a Lovanio: studio e testo di un inedito Bellarminiano (Aloisiana, 5) (Roma: Herder, 1966).

“Quaestio ista obscurissima est, sed parum utilis et multum periculosa. Quod obscurissima testatur sententiarum varietas.” In Summam Ia-IIae q. 87, dub. 2, Respondeo 5. See also Galeota ed., 327.

In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 1. See also Galeota ed., 329.

Bellarmine in his commentary on the Summa Ia-IIae, q. 87 did not use the word limbo. But what infernus referred here is not different from what is referred by the term limbo. For example, “Hoc solum inter veteres istos theologos interest, quod alii constituunt infantes ii parte inferni altiore, quam limbum puerorum appellant, alii cum caeteris damnatis eos locum habere pronunciant.” De Controversiis, Vol. 4, Controversia generalis De amissione gratiae et statu peccati, Liber VI (Milan: Edente Natale Battezzati, 1842), 236. Besides, it should be noted that for Bellarmine hell reserved for the child who dies unbaptized is only a place. It does not necessarily imply the infliction of fire. “De authore Hypognostici dicimus eum nusquam nominare poenam ignis, sed solum gehennam quae interpretatur vallis tristitiae, et hoc modo admittimus non esse nisi duo loca, paradisum et gehennam. Sed sicut in paradiso mansiones multae sunt, sic et in gehenna.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2. See also Galeota ed., 339.

Both John 3:5 and Romans 5:12 are the main scriptural citations adopted by the Tridentine Decree on original sin n. 4 where the baptism of infants are confirmed. See Heinrich Denzinger and Adolfus Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (DS) (Barcinone: Herder, 1967), n. 1514.

“At peccatoribus debetur poena. Parvuli decedentes sine baptismo manent in aeternum peccatores et filii irae. Ergo in aeternum puniuntur.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2. See also Galeota ed., 330.

See Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Georgetown university press, 1990), 528.

“Item in concilio Chart. et in Concil. Milev. damnantur in forma error iste Pelagii, quod parvuli sine baptismo non pereant in aeternum, sed aliquam vitam aeternam extra regnum coelorum sint habituri, ut patet ex epistolis horum Conciliorum ad Innocentium.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2. See also Galeota, 330. The condemnation was made in the Council of Carthage in 418, see C. Munier, ed., Concilia Africae a. 345-a. 525 Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (CCSL) 149 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974), 70, n. 3: “Item placuit ut si quis dicit ideo dixisse Dominum: In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt, ut intellegatur quia in regno caelorum erit aliquis medius aut ullus alicubi locus ubi beate uiuant paruuli qui sine baptismo ex hac uita migrarunt, sine quo in regnum caelorum quod est uita aeterna intrare non possunt, anathema sit.”

We know that Augustine in his Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum libri, Lib. I, Ch. 40 refuted Pelagius who gave the unbaptized child a place of salvation and life eternal outside the kingdom of heaven. Augustine also reported Pelagius’ position in De gratia Christi et de peccato originali, Lib. II, Ch. 21: “Sed postea non defuerunt fratres, qui nos admonerent, hoc ideo dicere Pelagium potuisse, quia de ista quaestione ita perhibetur solitus respondere quaerentibus, ut diceret, <Sine Baptismo parvuli morientes, quo non eant, scio; quo eant, nescio.>” (In this article, we followed Migne Patrologia Latina edition of Augustine’s works). Augustine interpreted the words of Pelagius as a denial of the unbaptized child’s entrance into eternal death. Bellarmine did not mention these two works in his arguments against a place of salvation outside the kingdom of heaven.

Bellarmine’s citation from De peccatorum meritis Lib. I, Ch. 28: “Probatur jam conclusio Patrum testimoniis Aug. 1 I De peccatorum merit. c. 28: <Nec est ullus ulli medius locus etc.>” and from De anima et euis origine Lib. I, Ch. 9: “et non baptizatis parvulis nemo promittat inter damnationem regnumque coelorum, quietis vel felicitatis cuiuslibet atque ubilibet quasi medium locum. Hoc enim eis etiam haeresis Pelagiana promisit.” In Summam Ia-IIae q. 87, dubium 2. See also Galeota, 331. Bellarmine did not neglect Augustine’s followers. The case in point is Prosper of Aquitaine whose major work De vocatione omnium gentium was used by Bellarmine to refute a middle place between God and devil: “quid est, inquit, quod alienatur a salute perpetua tanta infantium multitudo, totque in his aetatibus hominum millia extra vitam relinquuntur aeternam.” Fulgentius of Ruspe’s De fide ad Petrum is also mentioned by Bellarmine: “Parvulos, inquit, quibus nulla possunt vel bona vel mala inesse propriae merita voluntatis, insolubili nexu aeterna damnatio retinet.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 1, Tromp’s transcription of Bellarmine commentary. Other authorities of the Church Fathers appealed by Bellarmine are: Pope Leo, Pope Gregory the Great and Jerome.

See Augustine epistola 176.

“Illud vero quod eos vestra fraternitas asserit praedicare, parvulos aeternae vitae praemiis etiam sine Baptismatis gratia posse donari, perfatuum est.” See Augustine epistula 182, 5.

“Parvuli non baptizati non sola carentia divinae visionis, sed etiam interno aliquo dolore, quamvis mitissimo, puniuntur.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 332.

“Nota tristitiam sive dolorem de amissione boni (alicuius) tanto esse maiorem quanto quis ei bono adipiscendo propinquior fuit; (ex quo sequitur, parvulos minimum dolorem habituros de amissione gloriae, propterea quod ipsi ab ea adipiscenda remotissimi fuerint).” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 332. The words in the parentheses are not found in Galeota’s edition of the Refutatio, but they are in Tromp’s transcription of Bellarmine’s commentary on the Summa.

“Potest proinde recte dici parvulos sine baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros. Multum autem fallit et fallitur, qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros.”

“Pro eo nullam aliam ignis materialis vel conscientiae vermis poenam sensuri, nisi quod Dei visionem carebunt in perpetuum.” Magistri Petri Lombardi Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, Liber II, Tom.1, Pars II (Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4) (Roma: Collegium S. Bonaventurae Grottaferrata, 1971³), 520.

“Firmissmime tene et nullatenus dubites, non solum homines iam ratione utentes, uerum etiam paruulos, qui siue in uteris matrum uiuere incipiunt et ibi moriuntur, sine iam de matribus nati sine sacramento sancti baptismatis quod datur in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, de hoc saeculo transunt, ignis aeterni sempiterno supplicio puniendos. Quia et si peccatum propriae actionis nullum habuerunt, originalis tamen peccati damnationem carnali conceptione et natiuitate traxerunt.” J. Fraipont ed. De fide ad Petrvm, 70 (XXVII), in Sancti Fulgentii episcopi Ruspensis opera, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (CCSL) 91a (Turnholti: Brepols, 1968), 753. William of Auvergne deemed these words as Augustine’s: “Praesertim cum Augustinus poenam parvulorum ignem aeternum vocet in libro de fide ad Petrum, alioquin qualiter dixisset Apostolus omnes nascuntur filii irae.” De vitiis et peccatis, Ch. 7, in Opera omnia (Venice: Ex Officina Damiani Zenari, 1591), 267 b. Gregory of Rimini, who was called by Paolo Sarpi as parvulorum tortor, also attributed this paragraph to Augustine’s authority. It is also one of the grounds of Gregory’s argument for his harsh position that the child who departs this world unbaptized endures the physical suffering of fire. See In II Sent. dist. 30–33, q. 3, A. Damasus Trapp and Venicio Marcolino eds., Gregorii Ariminensis OESA Lectura super primum et secundum sententiarum, vol. 6 Spätmittelalter und Reformation: Texte und Untersuchungen 11 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 211. So Fulgentius’ words are important for theologians who insisted on the physical suffering of fire in limbo.

In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 1, Tromp’s transcription of Bellarmine’s commentary.

“Respondeo. In primis de Fulgentio non est dubium quin putaverit parvulos igne punire, et hoc etiam fide catholica putaverit esse credendum. Sed magis non movet authoritas Gregorii Nazzianzeni, Ambrosii, Innocentii, Magistri et omnium Scholasticorum, quam testimonium unius Fulgentii, praesertim cum aperte in eo lapsus sit, quod voluerit id esse de fide.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 3. See also Galeota ed., 339. At the same time, Bellarmine believed that Augustine himself never said clearly whether the child who dies unbaptized suffers physical penalty: “Deinde habemus, saltem D. Augustinum non definire, an puniantur parvuli sola poena damni, an etiam poena sensus.” Ibid.

See Serge-Thomas Bonino, O. P. “The Theory of Limbo and the Mystery of the Supernatural in St. Thomas Aquinas,” in Surnaturel: A Controversy at the Heart of the Twentieth-Century Thomistic Thought, ed. Serge-Thomas Bonino (Faith and Reason: Studies in Catholic Theology and Philosophy) (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2009), 121–22. According to his study, the majority of the medieval theologians neutralized the teaching of the position of Fulgentius under the authority of Augustine. It was in the late Middle Ages that Gregory of Rimini breathed a new life to the teaching of physical suffering.

“Possumus tamen breviter respondere, poenas istas corporales esse naturales homini iustitia originali spoliato et, sibi ipsi derelicto, et esse poenas peccati originis non directe et principaliter inflictas, sed consequentes ad poenam principalem, quae est ablatio doni iustitiae originalis; et ideo non esse mirum, si haec parvuli patiantur, sicut non miramur, quod alia animantia similia patiuntur. At vero poena ignis et sulphuris in alio saeculo non potest esse naturalis, sed solum ex ordinatione divinae iustitiae.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 3.

Augustine said: “Primo vide, frater, ne forte hinc consentire nobis debeas, quisquis ad regnum Dei non pertinet, eum ad damnationem sine dubio pertinere. Venturus Dominus, et iudicaturus de vivis et mortuis, sicut Evangelium loquitur, duas partes facturus est, dextram et sinistram. Sinistris dicturus: Ite in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius (Matthew 25: 41)”. This sermon was adopted by Gregory of Rimini to support his own preposition of physical infliction of the child in limbo. See In II Sent. dist. 30–33, q. 3, Opinio Augustini ostenditur, tertio, 214–15. So it is not unreasonable to suspect that Bellarmine’s exegesis here aimed at that of Gregory of Rimini.

“Non enim metuendum est ne vita esse potuerit media quaedam inter recte factum atque peccatum, et sententia iudicis media esse non possit inter praemium atque supplicium.”

“[Q]uis dubitaverit parvulos non baptizatos, qui solum habent originale peccatum, nec ullis propriis aggravantur, in damnatione omnium levissima futuros? Quae qualis et quanta erit, quamvis definire non possim, non tamen audeo dicere quod eis ut nulli essent quam ut ibi essent, potius expediret.”

In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 3, Respondeo 8. See also Galeota ed., 339.

Bellarmine also appealed to Augustine’s other works in addressing this issue: De fide et operibus Ch. 15; De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus q. 1. Bellarmine did not cite the original texts. But reviewing these texts, we can find out that the context is Augustine’s argument for the insufficiency of man’s faith alone, without good works, for the eternal life. In his view, some people are put to eternal fire, not because faith lacks in them, but because they do not practice good works. For example, from De fide et operibus Ch. 15: “Ite in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius? Quos non increpat quia in eum non crediderunt, sed quia bona opera non fecerunt”. These words appeared in De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus q. 1 as well. Augustine added this conclusion afterward: “Erit ergo aeterna combustio sicut ignis, et eos in illam ituros Veritas dixit, quorum non fidem sed bona opera defuisse declaravit”. An infant does not have the capacity to do good works, so for Bellarmine, the words ite in ignem aeternum are only applicable to adults who refused to do good works and committed actual sins.

Super Sent., lib. 2, dist. 33, q. 2, a. 2. See also Matthew of Aquasparta’s report on the difference between the Fathers and the Magisters, Quaestiones disputatae De anima separata, De anima beata, De ieiunio et De legibus (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1959), 141. For Bonaventure’s report, In II Sent. dist. 33, a. 3, q. 2.

In II Sent., dist. 33, q. 3, the critical edition (redaction A-B) prepared by Fiorella Retucci and Massimo Perrone (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 212–13. Concerning the words that we cited, there is no difference between redaction A-B and C. The most important study on the three redactions of Durandus’ commentary on the Sentences is Josef Koch, Durandus de S. Porciano O. P., Forschungen zum Streit um Thomas von Aquin zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters: Texte und Untersuchungen: 26) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1927). The latest study on the three redactions of Durandus commentary is Chris Schabel, Russell L. Friedman and Irene Balcoyiannopoulou, “Peter of Palude and the Parisian Reaction to Durand of St. Pourçain on Future Contingents,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 71 (2001), 183–300. For a review of medieval theologians’ positions on physical and internal suffering in the souls dwelling in limbo, see Bonino, “The Theory of Limbo,” 117–54.

“primo quidem affirmando conclusionem, quia ita est quod non dolent, quia tunc haberent penam sensus, quae non debetur illi peccato et non compatitur perfectam beatitudinem naturalem. …Isti autem nullo bono carent sibi debito per naturam vel per gratiam: unde malum eorum non est quod bonum eorum non privatur nec est pena nec culpa nisi respectu primi parentis.” In Sent., L. 2, dist. 33, q. 3. Cited from Juan Alfaro, Lo natural y lo sobrenatural: Estudio historico desde Santo Tomas hasta Cayetano, 1274–1534 (Madrid: CSIC, 1952), 274.

“Cognoscunt autem beatitudinem in generali, quae est status omnium bonorum congregatione perfectus in cognitione naturali omnium rerum et hanc habent cognitionem et sciunt se habere. …de visione Dei, sicuti est, illi sciunt quia non pertinet ad cognitionem naturalem, sed cognitionem naturalem habent de Deo et in illa delectantur et non tristantur de carentia visionis Dei supernaturalis.” Cited from Alfaro, Lo natural y lo sobrenatural, 262–63.

“est communis Ecclesia sententia quod, sicut non habuerunt (parvuli) experientiam delectionis in peccato actuali, sic non experiantur poenam affligentem et tristiam actualem.” In Secundum Sentent., dist. 33, a. 1–2.

In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 3. See also Galeota ed., 335–36.

“nos autem diximus, parvulos habituros aliquem dolorem, non directe inflictum propter peccatum, sed consequentem ad carentiam visionis Dei, quae est propria poena peccati originis.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 3. See also Galeota ed., 334.

“(Quidam dicebant, parvulos non dolituros, quia ignorabunt esse aliquam beatitudinem.) Ignorabunt autem, quia fidem hic non habuerunt, et naturaliter cognosci non potest. Haec ratio nec D. Thomas nec Bonaventurae, nec aliis doctoribus placet.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 332–33, but the words in the parentheses are not found in the Refutatio.

Bonaventure said: “propter haec et his similia est tertius modus dicendi, videlicet quod animae parvulorum carebunt actuali dolore et afflictione, non tamen carebunt cognitione.” II Sent. dist. 33, a. 3, q. 2.

“Dico ergo quod omnis homo usum liberi arbitrii habens proportionatus est ad vitam aeternam consequendam, quia potest se ad gratiam praeparare, per quam vitam aeternam merebitur.” cf. In II Sent. q. 2, a. 2.

For an overview of the positions of medieval theologians on limbo and an analysis of Thomas’ position, see Bonino’s article “The Theory of Limbo” and Christopher Beiting, “The idea of limbo in Thomas Aquinas,” The Thomist 62 (1998): 217–44. Both authors traced the development of Thomas’ thought on the state of unbaptized child in limbo. Fr. Bonino observed that most of the late medieval theologians followed this early version of St. Thomas’ position and adopted this analogy.

St. Thomas’ distinction of two beatitudes in De malo is not strange to Bellarmine as he also taught duplex beatitudo in his commentary on the Summa e.g.: “Duplex est hominis beatitudo, una naturalis, quae consistit in contemplatione veritatis et vitae probitae, quantum homo viribus naturae consequi potest. Altera supernaturalis, quae consistit in visione Dei et perfecta charitate. Sed per morales virtutes solum pertingere potest ad naturalem beatitudinem. Ergo indiget aliis sublimioribus, quibus ad beatitudinem supernaturalem perducatur.” In Summam Iam q. 62, Conclusio 1, Fr. Tromp’s transcription. So Bellarmine did not apply this two-fold beatitude theory to the case of the souls in limbo.

Thomas’ De malo was ignored by most of early modern Thomist theologians. Bellarmine in his commentary on the Summa also failed to be attentive to the development of Thomas’ thought in De malo. But the distinction between the two beatitudes made by Thomas in De malo had its significance for the theology of pure nature. For example, Suarez who is thought to be the theologian who constructed a developed version of pure nature theory incorporated Thomas’ theory in De malo into his own works. For example, Suarez said: “unde probabilius videtur quod, ibidem, D. Thomas ait, nihil cognoscere parvulos illos de beatitudine supernaturali: nam quod Soto ait naturali cognatione posse animam cognoscere praedictam privationem, et aptitudinem ad felicitatem aeternam, falsum est.” De vitiis et peccatis, Tractus V, disputatio IX, Sectio VI, n. 4, Francisci Suarez Opera omnia (Editio nova), vol. 4 (Parisiis: Apud Ludovicum Vivès, 1856), 627. See also Bonino, “The Theory of Limbo”, 153. It is interesting to note that in De Controversiis Bellarmine mentioned the development of Thomas’ view and reminded his readers that St. Thomas in De malo stood for the child’s ignorance of his own deprivation of the beatific vision: “hanc rationem (the ignorance of the child in limbo-our note) approbat s. Thom. in quaest. 5. de malo, art. 3. Sed eandem reprehendit in 2 sent. dist. 33. quaest. 2. art. 3.” De Controversiis, Vol. 4, Controversia generalis De amissione gratiae et statu peccati, Liber VI, 245.

For Thomas Aquinas’ position, Bellarmine said: “Sed salva reverentia praeclarissimi doctoris, haec ratio non convincit”. Similarly, his judgment of Bonaventure’s conclusion was: “Haec ratio nulli posteriorum placuit”. In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 333.

“Sed salva reverentia praeclarissimi doctoris, haec ratio non convincit. Nam habuerunt parvuli magnam dispositionem ad gloriam, quando ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei creati sunt, et insitus fuit eis naturalis appetitus beatitudinis; rustici autem non sunt nati vel creati, ut sint reges; nec umquam amiserunt ius ad regnum. Itaque sicut filius regis, qui nascitur in exilio, licet non habeat proximam dispositionem ad regnum, tamen dolet.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 333.

“Parvuli igitur, sic divino iudicio iusto inter Beatos et simpliciter miseros quasi in medio constituti, hoc noverunt, et cum ex una parte consideratio generet desolationem, ex altera consolationem; ita aeque lance divino iudicio eorum cognitio et affectio libratur et in tali statu perpetuatur, ut nec tristitia deiiciat, nec laetitia reficiat.” II Sent. dist. 33, a. 3, q. 2.

Bellarmine’s criticism of Bonaventure is around two points: “1. Quoniam hoc est parvulos revocare ad naturam rerum non sentientium, et lapides vel truncos, non homines facere. 2. Quoniam multo probabilius dixisset, parvulos non simul, sed per vices consideraturos amissam beatitudinem et liberationem a poenis, ac proinde per vices nunc dolituros, nunc gavisuros.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota, 333. Bellarmine added a third reason when editing his commentary for the Refutatio: the deliverance from eternal fire does not necessarily evoke consolation or gladness of the child, because the suffering of the fire is irrelevant for him. The child who dies unbaptized does not deserve the punishment of the fire, nor is he damned to it. Ibid.

In Summam Iam q. 95, dubium 5. Galeota ed., 188; similarly, “Nam intellectus humanus naturaliter est capax visionis Dei et eam naturaliter appetit, nec potest fieri ut non sit eius capax, nisi non sit intellectus sed aliquid inferius.” Ibid.

“non dici visionem Dei supernaturalem, quia sit finis naturalis, sed quia non potest acquiri viribus naturae.” In Summam Iam q. 62, a. 1.

“Nota praeterea, quod licet dolorem in parvulis internum ponamus de gloriae amissione, tamen vermen conscientiae ponere non audemus.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. Bellarmine explained the meaning of vermis conscientiae in this way: “Vermis enim conscientiae est dolor quem homo habet cum considerat se sua culpa, id est suis malis actibus gloriam perdidisse; parvuli autem propria voluntate fecerunt.” See also Galeota ed., 332.

“Parvuli non baptizati non sola carentia divinae visionis, sed etiam interno aliquo dolore, quamvis mitissimo puniuntur.” In Summam Ia-IIae, q. 87, dubium 2, Conclusio 2. See also Galeota ed., 332.