Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book I: On Sin, Mortal and Venial
Chapter 4: The judgments of the heretics are reported
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book I. 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).
These things being so established, let us come to explaining the judgments of the adversaries. The first were Jovinian and Pelagius, who took out of the way the difference between mortal and venial sin. For Jovinian taught that all sins are equal, as St. Augustine briefly indicated, book On Heresies, chapter 82, but more clearly St. Jerome in the second book against Jovinian, not far from the end, in these words: “But as to that which thou strivest to establish — that reviling and murder, ‘raca’ and adultery, an idle word and impiety, are repaid with one punishment — answer has already been made thee above.” And below: “They will not give thee such thanks whom thou liftest from the lowly place to the lofty, as they will be angry whom, for a light and daily sin, thou hast thrust out into the exterior darkness.” Thus he. Wherefore it is very strange what came into Alphonsus de Castro's mind, that in his book 12 against heresies, under the word Sin, heresy 8, he should write that this error concerning the equality of sins is nowhere, in the two books against Jovinian, ascribed by St. Jerome to Jovinian himself. For through many pages in the second book against Jovinian St. Jerome not only attributes this error to Jovinian by name, but also sets forth and solves all his arguments; and St. Augustine, in epistle 29 to Jerome, witnesses that this error of Jovinian was excellently confuted by Jerome himself. Following Jovinian, Pelagius taught that by any sin whatever justice is lost, and thereby that every sin is mortal; and since he could not deny that many are just, he affirmed that man can in this life live without all sin. So reports St. Jerome in the first and second Dialogue against the Pelagians; and St. Augustine in the book On Heresies, chapter 88: “They advance even to this,” says Augustine, “that they say the life of the just in this age has no sin at all, and that of these the Church of Christ is perfected in this mortality, so as to be altogether without spot or wrinkle — as though that were not the Church of Christ which in the whole world cries to God: Forgive us our debts.”
After these, John Wyclif (as Thomas Waldensis reports, tome 2 On the Sacraments, chapters 54 and following) reprehended the whole Church for being ignorant of the distinction of mortal and venial sin. And he himself taught that all sins are mortal, if by mortal be understood that which is inductive of eternal death; but if by mortal be understood that which in fact brings eternal death, then all the sins of the reprobate are mortal, those of the elect venial by their nature. From which judgment this manifestly follows, that all are mortal [by nature].
In our age, in which nearly all the old errors are reborn, there are no heretics who acknowledge the true difference between mortal and venial sins. Martin Luther, in the assertion of all his articles, when in article 32 he had said that every work of a just man is sin, and Pope Leo X had condemned this, so increased his error as to say that every work of a just man is a sin by its nature mortal, and by the sole mercy of God venial. The same Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Baptism, indicates that all sins are venial except unbelief, when he says: “So thou seest how rich the Christian man is, or the baptized, who even willing cannot lose his salvation by however great sins, unless he will not believe.” Which is not so to be taken as though Luther judged there are no sins by their nature mortal except unbelief; but he says this because he has persuaded himself that all sins are pardoned, or not imputed, to believers, and that to unbelievers none is pardoned — since faith alone, in his opinion, justifies; and so we return to the first error: that any sins whatever are by their nature mortal, and by the sole mercy of God venial.
Philip Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces, under the title on the difference between mortal and venial sin, seems indeed to acknowledge some distinction between these sins, but in very truth does not depart from Luther's judgment. For he writes that mortal sins are those which shake out the Holy Spirit; venial, those which do not shake him out. But in his explaining he betrays his errors plainly enough. For first he teaches that the difference of mortal and venial sin has no place in the unregenerate: “Although,” says he, “Nero and Epicurus sin much more atrociously than Cato, yet both are oppressed by horrendous mortal sins, and by the eternal wrath of God. Nor is it necessary to seek in the unregenerate the difference of mortal and venial sin, because everything that is not of faith is sin.” But if the sins of the unregenerate are all mortal, this altogether follows, that no sins are by their nature venial; for if any were by their nature venial, they would be venial even in the unregenerate. Second, he teaches that in the regenerate the venial sins are the depraved motions which so forestall or carry off reason that they cannot be called voluntary, and which sometimes exist in us against our will and our resistance. And because someone could meet him and say that those things which are not voluntary are not sins, neither mortal nor venial, he subjoins that that common saying (“What is not voluntary is not sin”) is to be understood as to civil judgment, not as to the judgment of the divine law. And so all those things which by the judgment of Catholics are true sins — that is, which are in some way voluntary — all of them, I say, by Philip's judgment are mortal; and those alone are with him venial which with Catholics are no sins at all. Third, he teaches that venial sins are truly against the law of God, and bring great deformity, and even deserve the wrath of God, but are called venial because they are pardoned to those who are pleasing to God — which is that very thing which Luther meant when he said that all the works of the just are mortal sins by their nature, but venial by the mercy of God, because they are not imputed to believers. “Although,” says he, “the regenerate, in whom the knowledge of Christ is kindled, and true invocation, and obedience is begun, are just, please God, and have the Holy Spirit, yet there still remains in them in this life a huge infirmity — namely, a darkness in the mind concerning God, and a depraved inclination of the will and heart, and many vicious affections,” etc. And a little after: “These evils in the regenerate are against the law of God, as Paul witnesses, Romans 7; and how great is the deformity, how great the magnitude of these evils, the pious in true sorrows in some manner acknowledge. But because the person is accepted — the knowledge of Christ and faith being kindled in the heart, and the Holy Spirit given — and in some manner acknowledges and deplores the infirmity, and trembles at the acknowledgment of the wrath of God against sin, and asks pardon, and resists the first kindlings, these evils become for this person venial sins, that is, pardoned, so that they do not shake out the Holy Spirit and faith, and the person remains in grace.” And again a little lower: “Although the diseases still cleaving to the regenerate in this life, and the vicious affections, are not light or contemptible evils, nor are they merely adiaphora beside the law of God, as the monks feigned, but are truly against the law of God: yet so long as a good conscience and faith remain in the regenerate, the Holy Spirit also remains.” Fourth, he teaches that mortal sins are all those which shake out faith — that is, which cannot stand together with faith; and that such are all voluntary sins: “Lastly,” says he, “it is impossible that these two exist together: an evil conscience, that is, a purpose of sinning, and faith, which is confidence in the mercy of God promised for Christ's sake. For he who has a purpose of sinning contemns or flees God, does not come to God; but confidence in mercy comes to God through Christ the High Priest.” From these things we have it that Philip acknowledges no venial sins except involuntary ones, and that these are venial not from their nature, but because on account of faith they are not imputed.
The same judgment Tilman Heshusius expresses in the book on the errors of the Papists, title 4, which is on sin, number 24, in these words: “The Papists contend that the difference between mortal and venial sin consists not in this, that venial sins are covered and pardoned, but mortal liable to eternal damnation; but that the difference is in the very nature and action of the sins — in this manner, that mortal sins are of such a kind as to be repugnant to justice, to charity, and to the divine law, and to deserve eternal damnation; but venial to be adverse neither to charity, nor to justice, nor to the law, nor even to deserve death or the wrath of God, but to be worthy of pardon.” Into the same judgment concur the Magdeburgians, century 1, book 2, chapter 4, column 171, where they speak thus of the difference of sins, from the doctrine (as they think) of the Apostles: “They (the Apostles) teach that no sin indeed is venial of itself, since they assert that all sins fight with the divine law, and deserve the wrath of God and eternal punishments; but by accident — that is, on account of causes falling in from elsewhere, namely on account of the remission of sins, which befalls the faithful for Christ's sake.” And a little before they had said: “He who is born of God commits not sin — that is, commits not mortal sin; but his sins are venial, or the sins are not imputed to him, on account of faith in Christ.” And column 173: “To the impious and unbelieving,” say they, “not only do external crimes against the law of God bring death and condemnation, but even the depraved nature, and the internal evil affections, and external works even civilly honorable. But to the regenerate all actual sins bring death, whether internal, as thoughts and affections, or external, as sayings and deeds against the law of God, if they do not resist them by faith, but assent to effecting them — whether they be brought into act or not.” And a little below: “Mortal sins shake out faith, and the Holy Spirit, and a good conscience.” The same is the judgment of Martin Chemnitz, in part 1 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, pages 926 and 927: “Mortal sins,” says he, “shake out faith and the Holy Spirit, and then men cease to be just; but venial sins are even in the regenerate, nor do they on that account cease to be just.” And below: “Though there be differences and degrees of sins, yet no sin is so minute and light as not to be anomia, that is, a transgression of the divine law.” And below: “The law accuses and condemns even those sins which are called venial, unless they be covered and not imputed for Christ's sake.”
Further, John Calvin assents partly to Luther, partly to Jovinian, partly to Wyclif. For in book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 8, §59, he thus concludes: “Let the children of God hold that every sin is mortal, because it is rebellion against the will of God, which necessarily provokes his wrath; because it is transgression of the law, upon which the judgment of God is pronounced without exception; and that the offenses of the Saints are venial, not from their own nature, but because from the mercy of God they obtain pardon.” And book 3, chapter 4, §28: “But the sins of the faithful are venial — not because they do not deserve death, but because by the mercy of God there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, because they are not imputed, because they are wiped away by pardon.” Nor does he write things unlike these in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 12. And these things indeed agree with the doctrine of the Lutherans. But because the same Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, §11, teaches that faith is the proper gift of the elect, and that, once truly had, it can never be lost, it thence follows that by Calvin's doctrine all the sins of the reprobate are mortal, but those of the elect venial — as we have shown that Wyclif also held. Yet this is the difference between Wyclif and Calvin: that Wyclif makes the sins of the elect absolutely venial; but Calvin will have those to be venial which are done by the elect after faith once obtained, not those before faith. And so, in Calvin's opinion, the sins of the faithful elect are venial not so much because they are elect, as because they remain with faith, which once had never perishes, and is proper to the elect; in which Calvin follows Jovinian, who taught that a man once baptized can never fall away from the grace of God, St. Jerome witnessing, book 2 against Jovinian. And the words of Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 2, §11, are these: “The reprobate never perceive any but a confused sense of grace, so that they lay hold of a shadow rather than the solid body; because the Spirit properly seals the remission of sins in the elect alone, so that they apply it by special faith to their own use.” And a little before: “Therefore,” says he, “as God regenerates the elect alone with incorruptible seed forever, so that the seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes, so he solidly seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be stable and sure.”
Contrary to all these errors is the common judgment of the Catholic theologians, in the Master of the Sentences, book 2 of the Sentences, distinction 42, and St. Thomas, 1-2, question 88, article 1, and of almost all the writers who have discoursed against the heretics on this controversy. For they teach with common consent that certain sins, by their own nature, no regard being had to predestination or reprobation, or to the state of the regenerate or unregenerate, are mortal, certain venial; and that by the former a man is rendered unworthy of the friendship of God, and guilty of eternal death; by the latter he is constituted guilty only of temporal punishment and fatherly chastisement. Excepted are John Gerson, part 3 of the Theology, treatise on the spiritual life of the soul, lesson 1; James Almain, treatise 3, chapter 20; and John, Bishop of Rochester, in the refutation of article 32 of Luther — who have bent somewhat from the common judgment of the theologians, but without stubbornness, and in a far other manner than the enemies of the faith do.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. Referuntur sententia haereticorum. His ita constitutis ad sententias adversa¬ riorum explicandas accedamus. Primi fue¬ runt Jovinianus, et Pelagius, qui discrimen peccati mortalis, et venialis sustulerunt, e medio. Jovinianus enim docuit , peccata omnia esse paria ; ut breviter indicavit S. August. lib. de haresibus cap. 82, sed cla¬ rius S. Hieronymus in ii. lib. adversus Jovi- nianum, non procul a fine, his verbis : « De eo autem quod niteris approbare, convitium et homicidium, raca et adulterium, otiosum sermonem et impietatem uno supplicio re¬ pensari, jam supra tibi responsum est. » Et infra : «Non tibi habebunt tantas gratias, quos de humili in sublime levas, quantum irascentur, quos propter leve quotidianumque peccatum in exteriores tenebras extrusisti. » Haec ille. Quocirca valde mirum est, quid Alphonso de castro venerit in mentem, ut in s .10 lib. xii. contra lnereses, verbo Pecca¬ tum, haeres. 8. scriberet, hunc errorem, de peccatorum aequalitate, nusquam a S. Hiero¬ nymo in duobus libris adversus Jovinianum, ipsi Joviniano adseribi. Nam per multas paginas in secundo libro contra Jovinianum sanctus Hieronymus non solum hunc errorem nominatim Joviniano tribuit, sed etiam omnia ejus argumenta proponit et solvit. Et S. Au¬ gustinus in epist. 29. ad Hieronymum, hunc Joviniani errorem ab ipso Hieronymo prae¬ clare confutatum fuisse testatur. Jovinianum secutus Pelagius, quolibet pec¬ cato justitiam amitti docebat, ac per hoc omne peccatum esse mortale, et quoniam multos justos esse negare non poterat, affir¬ mabat posse hominem in hac vita, sine omni peccato vivere. Ita refert S. Hieronymus in i. et ii. Dialogo contra Pelagianos. EtS. Augu¬ stinus in lib. de haeres, cap. 88. « In id etiam, jnquit Augustinus, progrediuntur, ut dicant, vitam justorum in hoc saeculo nullum omnino habere peccatum, et ex his Ecclesiam Christi in hac mortalitate perfici, ut sit omnino sine macula et ruga, quasi non sit Christi Ecclesia, quae in .toto terrarum orbe clamat ad Deum : Dimitte nobis debita nostra. » Post hos Joannes Wicleffus (ut refert Tho- mas Waldensis tom. 2. de Sacramentis, cap. 54 et seq.) totam Ecclesiam reprehendebat, CAPUT IV. 217 (juod ignoraret distinctionem peccati mor¬ talis, et venialis. Docebat vero ipse, omnia peccata esse mortalia, si per mortale intelli- gatur id, quod est mortis aeternae inductivum. Si vero per mortale intclligatur id, quod de lacto mortem aeternam adducit, tunc omnia peccata reproborum esse mortalia, electorum venialia ex natura sua. Ex qua sententia illud manifeste sequitur, ut omnia sint mor¬ talia. Nostro sseculo quo veteres errores pene omnes renascuntur, nulli sunt haeretici qui verum discrimen agnoscant inter peccata mortalia, et venialia. Martin us Luthcrus in assert. omnium articulorum suorum, cum in artic. 32. dixisset, omne opus ho.i.inis justi esse peccatum, et hoc Leo X. Pontifex dam- nasset, ita suum errorem auxit, ut diceret, omne opus hominis justi esse peccatum ex natura sua mortale, et ex sola Dei miseri¬ cordia veniale. Idem Luthcrus in lib. de ca- ptivit. Babylon, cap. de Baptismo, indicat omnia peccata esse venialia praeter incredu¬ litatem, cum ait : « Ita vides quam dives sit homo Christianus, sive baptizatus, qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscumque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. » Quod non ita accipiendum est, quasi existi¬ maverit Luthcrus non esse ulla peccata ex natura sua mortalia praeter incredulitatem : sed illud dicit, quia sibi persuasit omnia pec- ' cata condonari, vel non imputari creden¬ tibus ; non credentibus autem nullum condo¬ nari, cum fides sola, ejus opinione, justificet, ita reditur ad primum errorem, ut quaevis peccata natura sua mortalia sint, sola vero Dti misericordia venialia. Philippus Melanchthon in locis commu¬ nibus tit. de discrimine peccati mortalis et venialis, videtur quidem agnoscere distin¬ ctionem aliquam, inter haec peccata, sed re¬ vera a Lutheri sententia non recedit. Scribit enim peccata mortalia esse, quae excutiunt Scriptum sanctura ; venialia, quae non excu¬ tiunt. Sed inter explicandum satis aperte pro¬ dit errores suos. Primum enim docet discri¬ men peccati mortalis et venialis non habere locum in non renatis : « Quamquam, inquit, Nero et Epicurus multo atrocius peccant, quam Cato : tamen utrique sunt oppressi peccatis mortalibus horrendis, et ira Dei aeterna. Nec neccsse est in non renatis quae¬ rere discrimen peccati mortalis et venialis, quia orauc quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. » Quod si peccata non renatorum sunt Tom. V. omnia mortalia, id omnino sequitur, ut nulla sint peccata ex natura sua venialia. Nam si quae essent ex natura sua venialia, etiam in non renatis essent venialia. Secundo docet, in renatis venialia peccata esse motus pravos, qui rationem ita praeve- niunt, aut rapiunt, ut voluntarii dici non pos¬ sint : quique nobis invitis et repugnantibus in nobis interdum existunt. Et quia poterat aliquis occurrere, ac dicere, ea quae non sunt voluntaria, non. esse peccata nec mor¬ talia, nec venialia, subjungit, vulgatum illud dictum (Quod non est voluntarium, non est peccatum) intelligendum esse quoad judicium civile, non quoad judicium legis divinae. Ita¬ que omnia illa, quae sunt ex sententia Catho¬ licorum vera peccata, id est, quae suntaliquo modo voluntaria omnia (inquam) ex Philippi sententia sunt mortalia, et sola illa apud cum venialia sunt, quae apud Catholicos nulla peccata sunt. Tertio docet, peccata venialia esse vere contra legem Dei, et magnam deformitatem adferre; atque adeo iram Dei mereri. Sed venialia dici, quia condonantur iis, qui Deo grati sunt. Quod est illud ipsum, quod Lu- therus voluit, cum ait, omnia opera justorum esse peccata mortalia ex natura sua, sed ve¬ nialia ex misericordia Dei, quia credentibus non imputantur : « Quamquam, inquit, re¬ nati, in quibus est accensa cognitio Christi, et vera invocatio, et inchoata est obedientia, sunt justi, placent Deo, et habent Spiritum sanctum : tamen in eis adhuc in hac vita manet ingens infirmitas, videlicet caligo in mente de Deo, et voluntatis ac cordis prava inclinatio, et multi vitiosi affectus, etc. » Et paulo post : « Ilajc mala in renatis sunt contra legem Dei, ut Paulus testatur Roman. v ti. et quanta sit deformitas, quanta magni¬ tudo horum malorum pii in veris doloribus aliquo modo agnoscunt. Sed quia persona accepta est, accensa agnitione Christi, et fide in corde, et donato Spiritu sancto, et aliquo modo infirmitatem agnoscit, et deplorat, et expavescit, agnitione ira; Dei adversus pec¬ catum, et petit condonationem, et repugnat primis incendiis, fiunt huic persona) haec mala venialia peccata, id est, condonata, ita ut non excutiant Spiritum sanctum, et fidem, ac maneat persona in gratia. » E rursus paulo inferius : « Etsi, inquit, morbi haerentes adhuc in renatis in hac vita, et vi¬ tiosi affectus, non sunt levia, aut contem¬ nenda mala, nec sunt tantum ixxV.xi praeter 13. 218 LIBER I. legem Dei, ut monachi finxerunt, sed vere sunt contra legem Dei ; tamen donec manet in renatis bona conscientia et fides, manet etiam Spiritus sanctus. » Quarto docet, peccata mcrtalia esse illa omnia, qua excutiunt fidem, id est, quse simul cum fide consistere nequeunt : talia autem esse omnia peccata voluntaria : « Postremo, inquit, haec duo impossibile est simul exi- stere, malam conscientiam, id est, propo¬ situm peccandi, et fidem, quae est fiducia misericordiae Dei propter Christum promissae. Quia habens propositum peccandi, contemnit aut fugit Deum, non accedit ad Deum. At fi¬ ducia misericordiae accedit ad Deum Pon¬ tifice Christo ». Ex his habemus, Philippum non agnoscere ulla peccata venialia nisi in¬ voluntaria, et ea venialia esse non ex na¬ tura sua, sed quia ob fidem non imputantur. Eamdem sententiam exprimit Tilmannus Heshusius in lib. de erroribus Pontificior. tit. 4. qui est de peccato, num. 24. his verbis : <( Contendunt Pontificii, discrimen inter pec¬ catum mortale et veniale non in eo consistere, quod venialia peccata tecta, et condonata sint : mortalia vero aeternae damnationi obnoxia, sed quod discrimen sit in ipsa peccatorum na¬ tura, et actione, hoc modo, quod peccata mortalia sint ejusmodi, utrepugnentjustitia), charitati, et legi divinae, et mereantur aeter¬ nam damnationem ; venialia vero nec chari¬ tati, nec justitiae, nec legi adversentur, nec etiam mereantur mortem, vel iram Dei, sed sint digna venia. » In eamdem sententiam concurrunt Magde- burgenses cent. 1. lib. n. cap. 4. column. 171. ubi sic loquuntur de discrimine pecca¬ torum ex doctrina (ut ipsi putant) Aposto- lica : « Docent (Apostoli) veniale peccatum nullum quidem per se esse, dum asserunt omnia peccata pugnare cum lege divina, et mereri iram Dei, et aeternas poenas. Sed per accidens, hoc est, propter causas aliunde incidentes, nempe propter remissionem pec¬ catorum , quae contingit fidelibus propter Christum. » Et paulo ante dixerant : « Qui natus ex est Deo, peccatum non committit, l^oc est, non committit peccatum mortale, sed venialia ejus sunt peccata, seu peccata propter fidem in Christum, ipsi non impu¬ tantur. » Et column. 173: « Impiis, inquiunt, et incredulis non tantum scelera externa contra legem Dei adferunt mortem et con¬ demnationem : verum etiam depratava na¬ tura, et interni affectus mali, et opera ex¬ terna, etiam civiliter honesta. Renatis vero mortem edferunt omnia actualia peccata, sive interna ut cogitationes, et affectus, sive externa, ut dicta, et facta contra legem Dei, si non repugnent iis fide, sed assentiantur ad efficiendum ea, sive in actum perducantur, sive non. » Et paulo infra : « Peccata mor¬ talia excutiunt fidem, et Spiritum sanctum, et bonam conscientiam. » Eadem est sententia Martini Kemnitiiin i. par. Examinis Concilii Tridentini pag. 926. et 927. « Peccata mortalia, inquit, excutiunt fidem, et Spiritum sanctum, et tunc desinunt esse justi. Venialia vero peccata sunt etiam in renatis, nec propterea desinunt esse justi. » Et infra : « Licet sint differentiae, et gradus peccatorum, nullum tamen tam minutum et leve peccatum est, quod non sit avoixta, hoc est, pra;varicatio legis divirne. » Et infra : « Lex accusat et damnat etiam illa peccata, quae venialia vocantur, nisi tegantur et non imputentur propter Christum. » Porro Joannes Calvinus partim Luthero, partim Joviniano, partim Wicleffo assentitur. Nam lib. n. Institutionum, cap. 8. §. 59. ita concludit: « Habeant filii Dei omne peccatum mortale esse, quia est adversus Dei volun¬ tatem rebellio, quae ejus iram necessario provocat ; quia est legis praevaricatio, in qua edictum est sine exceptione Dei judicium : Sanctorum delicta venialia esse, non ex suapte natura, sed quia ex Dei misericordia veniam consequuntur. » Et lib. m. cap. 4. §. 28 : (( Cacterum, inquit, fidelium peccata venialia esse : non quia non mortem mereantur, sed quia Dei misericordia nulla est condemnatio iis, qui sunt in Christo Jesu, quia non impu¬ tantur quia venia delentur. » Neque his dissi¬ milia scribit in Antidoto Concilii Trident. sess. 6. cap. 12. Atque haec quidem consentanea sunt do¬ ctrinae Lutheranorum. Sed quia idem Cal¬ vinus lib. m. Institutionum, cap. 2. §.11. docet, fidem esse donum proprium electo¬ rum, et semel vere habitam non posse un¬ quam amitti; inde consequitur, ut ex doctrina Calvini peccata omnia reproborum sint mor¬ talia, electorum autem venialia, utWicleffum etiam sensisse demonstratimus. Hoc tamen interest inter WiclefTum et Calvinum, quod Wicleffus absolute peccata electorum facit venialia, Calvinus autem vult esse venialia, qua; fiunt ab electis post fidem semel ade¬ ptam, non autem qua; ante fidem. Itaque opinione Calvini peccata fidelium CAPUT V. 21!) electorum sunt venialia, non tam quia electi sunt, quam quia manent cum fide, qute semel habita numquam perit, et propria e 'cetorum est; in quo Calvinus Jovinianum sequitur, qui docuit hominem semel baptizatum non posse unquam a gratia Dei, excidere, testeS. Hiero¬ nymo lib. ii. adversus Jovinianum. Verba autem Calvini lib. m. Instit. cap. 2. §. 11. haec sunt : « Reprobi nunquam sensum gratiae nisi confusum percipiunt, ut umbram potius apprehendant, quam solidum corpus. Quia peccatorum remissionem spiritus proprie in solis electis obsignat, ut eam speciali fide in usum suum applicent. » Et paulo ante : «Ergo, inquit, ut solos electos semine incor¬ ruptibili Deus in perpetuum regenerat, ut nunquam dispereat semen vitae eorum cor¬ dibus insitum, itasolidein illis obsignat ado¬ ptionis suae gratiam, ut stabilis ac rata sit. » His omnibus erroribus contraria est sen¬ tentia communis Theologorum Catholicorum apud Magistrum Sententiarum in secundo li¬ bro Sentent. dist. 42. et S. Thom. 1. 2. quaest. 88. art. 1. et omnium fere scriptorum qui adversus haereticos de hac controversia disseruerunt. Docent enim communi con¬ sensu, peccata quaedam ex natura sua, nulla ratione habita ad praedestinationem, ve] re¬ probationem, aut ad statum renatorum, vel non renatorum, esse mortalia, quaedam ve¬ nialia ; et prioribus quidem indignum reddi hominem amicitia Dei, et mortis aeternae reum, posterioribus temporalis tantum sup¬ plicii , paternaeque castigationis hominum reum constitui. Excipiuntur Joan. Gerson. 3. par. Theologiae, tract. de vita spirituali animae, lect. 1. Jacobus Almain tract. 3. cap. 20. et Joan. Episcopus Roffcnsis in re¬ futatione artic. 32. Lutheri, qui nonnihil a communi Theologorum sententia deflexe¬ runt, sed absque pervicacia, et longe alia ratione, quam hostes fidei faciant.