Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book I: On Sin, Mortal and Venial
Chapter 8: The error of the Lutherans is refuted
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).
The Lutherans, as we showed above from Luther, Melanchthon, Illyricus, Heshusius, and Chemnitz, teach three things chiefly. First, that venial sins are those which are not imputed by God, though of themselves they are worthy of punishment and everlasting torment. Second, that those sins are not imputed by God which stand in a man together with faith — that is, with confidence in mercy. Third, that those sins alone stand with faith which are involuntary. From which follows, fourth, that all sins in unbelievers are mortal, and consequently that all sins by their nature are mortal — of which fourth head (because it is common also to certain other writers not Lutherans) we shall discourse separately afterward. Now let us briefly refute the three former heads, which seem proper to the Lutherans.
What, then, they affirm in the first place — that venial sins are those which are not imputed — is openly repugnant to the Scriptures and the Fathers. For Scripture, in those places where by the consent even of the Lutherans it speaks of venial sins, manifestly teaches that the remission of those sins must be asked of God; they are not, then, covered and condoned, or not imputed (as they say), but they are imputed, and bind, and make guilty — though they are easily condoned and remitted. It is agreed between us and the Lutherans that venials are treated of in Matthew 6, forgive us our debts — since this humble and true confession belongs also to the just; but here we see the just asking the remission of venial sins; hence they were not before condoned, or not imputed. The same reasoning holds of that place, 1 John 1: If we say that we have no sin, etc.; for it is straightway subjoined: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. But if the sins of the just, because the person is pleasing, were not imputed, what need would there be of remission? and why must confession first be premised? Nor unlike is that place of Psalm 31: For this (that is, for the remission of sin) shall every one that is holy pray to thee in a seasonable time. And that of Psalm 98: thou wast a merciful God to them, and taking vengeance on all their inventions. Certainly, if God took vengeance on the sins of his faithful servants Moses, Aaron, and Samuel, he imputed them to them, and did not cover them, until they were purged. Hither also pertains that of John 13: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet — which the holy Fathers have taught pertains to venial sins. For he who has been washed from impiety and deadly crimes still needs the washing of the feet — that is, the remission of venials, which like dust cleave to our feet on the road of this life. “The Lord says” (says St. Augustine, tractate 56 on John), “the Truth speaks, that even he who has been washed has need to wash his feet. What, my brethren, what do you think, save that in holy Baptism a man is indeed wholly washed — not all but his feet, but wholly and altogether; yet, while afterward one lives among human things, assuredly the earth is trodden. Those human affections themselves, then, without which one lives not in this mortality, are as it were the feet, whereby we are touched from human things — and so touched that, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Daily therefore he washes our feet who intercedes for us; and that we daily have need to wash our feet — that is, to direct the ways of our spiritual steps — we confess in the Lord's prayer itself, when we say: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. For if we confess our sins, as it is written, then assuredly he who washed the feet of his disciples is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity — that is, even to the feet, with which we converse on the earth.” Thus St. Augustine. From all which it can be clear how falsely and rashly Philip said (as we cited in chapter 4) that venial sins are condoned sins; and Illyricus, that they are sins which for the sake of faith in Christ are not imputed; and Heshusius, that they are covered sins; and Calvin, that they are sins which are not imputed to those who are in Christ Jesus.
And what they say in the second place — that those sins are not imputed, and thereby are venial, which stand together with faith — is with easy labor proved false. For if it were so as the adversaries will, it would follow that there is no mortal sin except unbelief, and hence that sacrileges, murders, adulteries, thefts, rapines are not mortal sins — which is both against the manifest doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and against the judgment of the Lutherans themselves. And that it follows from the adversaries' dogma that there is no mortal sin except unbelief is proved: for there is no sin which necessarily excludes faith except that which is opposed to it, which is unbelief. Which same thing experience itself manifestly witnesses: for if by faith be understood a certain and undoubting assent, given to all those things which the Church, from the word of God written or handed down, teaches are to be believed, we see among Catholics many public sinners — murderers, fornicators, thieves, drunkards — who nevertheless without any doubting have faith in all those things which the Church proposes to be believed. But if by faith we take that which the Lutherans have falsely persuaded themselves is faith — namely confidence in mercy for Christ's sake, and that special, by which each certainly believes and trusts that God is propitious to himself for Christ's sake — we see very many among the heretics who say they have such faith, while they lead a most base life, and teach even the gravest errors concerning Christ, the Church, the Sacraments, sins, justification, and the other things pertaining to the doctrine of the faith. For to this special faith of the Lutherans not any unbelief whatever is repugnant, but that alone by which one does not certainly believe that God is propitious to him. And if perchance the Lutherans say that they have no errors, and that that special faith of theirs cannot be in those who commit murders, adulteries, and other sins of that kind: let them leave their own and look a little at the men of the other sects. Certainly that the Calvinists are engaged in many and great errors, and are even blasphemers and sacrilegious, they neither are ignorant of nor keep silent; and yet they will not be able to deny that these certainly persuade themselves that they are most dear to God for Christ's sake, and hence have that special faith which with them alone justifies. The same we can say of the Anabaptists, the Trinitarians, and others, who to the Lutherans are heretics, and yet certainly believe that God is propitious to them for Christ's sake. And if that confidence can be conceived by those who are most stubborn in errors against the word of God, why can it not also be conceived by those whom murders, adulteries, thefts, and other like sins delight? But (says Philip, in the Commonplaces, title on the difference of mortal and venial sin) he who has a purpose of sinning does not come to God, but contemns and flees him; but faith comes to God through Christ the High Priest; therefore it is impossible that these two stand together — a purpose of sinning, and faith. I answer: he who has a purpose of sinning, if he apprehend God as a just judge, who hates and punishes sins while they remain in us — as the Catholics apprehend him — without doubt flees from God; but if he apprehend God (as the Lutherans apprehend him) as so merciful and easy that he wills not to punish the sins truly inhering and living in us, but to cover them, and to impute to us in their stead the justice and merits of Christ — I deny that such a one does not come to God. For he who could persuade himself that sins truly remaining in him are not imputed to him by God, and that, these notwithstanding, he is dear and pleasing to God for Christ's sake, will with the same easiness be able to believe that a purpose of sinning is not imputed to him by God, provided he make Christ's merits his own through faith. Certainly Calvin did not judge it impossible to join a purpose of sinning with faith, since in the Antidote to canon 28 of session 6 of the Council of Trent he wrote that even in great falls true and living faith remains. And not even Luther himself believed so certainly that those two cannot be joined as Philip believed: for in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Baptism, he writes that a man cannot be damned by however great sins, if faith stand, or return; in which place, by that disjunction — “if faith stand, or return” — he openly signified that he had not certainly determined that faith cannot stand with great falls.
We have, then, from the very nature and notion of faith, that all sins can stand together with faith itself except unbelief, or a diffidence contrary to faith or to confidence; and thereby that all sins except unbelief, or the aforesaid diffidence, are venial — if all those are to be called venial which do not exclude faith. But this same is proved again from the doctrine of the Fathers, and from the common sense and consensus of all nations. For if all sins — or at least the graver ones, which we name mortal — could not stand with faith, it would follow that a Christian man cannot slip into fornication, theft, murder, or another like sin without in the same moment becoming a heretic: for he would lose justifying faith, which alone is true faith; and they who lose the true faith are called heretics. But this is repugnant to the whole of antiquity, and to the sense and consensus of all nations. For always in the Church a very wide difference has been acknowledged between heretics and evil Catholics: since the former make a departure from the Church, the latter live abandonedly within the Church; the former assail the doctrine, the latter violate the discipline; the former are compared to tares, the latter to chaff; the former to ravening wolves, the latter to sick sheep. Finally, it is unheard of in the Church that for mere fornication, or adultery, or another like sin, any Christian should be said to have lost the faith, and so to have become an unbeliever or a heretic. St. Augustine, in the book of Questions on Matthew, question 11: “Between heretics and evil Catholics this is the difference: that heretics believe false things; but the others, believing true things, do not live as they believe.” And book 4 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 18 [al. 19]: “Let us suppose someone chaste, continent, not covetous, not serving idols, ministering hospitality to the needy, no man's enemy, not contentious, patient, quiet, emulating no one, envying no one, sober, frugal — but a heretic: it is assuredly doubtful to no one that, for this alone, that he is a heretic, he will not possess the kingdom of God. Let us suppose another — fornicating, unclean, luxurious, covetous, or even more openly given to idols, a poisoner, quarrelsome, contentious, emulous, passionate, seditious, envious, drunken, a reveler — but a Catholic: shall he, for this alone, that he is a Catholic, possess the kingdom of God, doing such things, of which the Apostle thus concludes: of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God? If we say this, we deceive ourselves.” Nor is there need to add other testimonies of the Fathers, since the matter is so clear that it is a wonder it could be called into doubt by any man. It has been proved, then, that from the doctrine of the Lutherans it follows that adulteries, murders, thefts, and other sins of that kind are all venial, since they do not exclude faith, howsoever they take it. And that this dogma is against the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles, and against the judgment of the same Lutherans — which was the assumption of our argument — can easily be shown. For Christ, Matthew 5: whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. From which we understand that a contumelious word against a brother is a deadly sin. And Matthew 25: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire… For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat, etc. From which place St. Augustine, book On Faith and Works, chapter 15, rightly gathers that not to share one's goods with the needy — and much more to seize what is another's — are mortal sins, even in those who never lost the faith: “There will therefore be an eternal burning, and the Truth says that they will go into it whose good works, not whose faith, he declared to have been wanting.” And the Apostle, as the same Augustine a little before recalled, in 1 Corinthians 6, Ephesians 5, and Galatians 5, enumerates several kinds of sins and subjoins: they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Finally, Philip Melanchthon (as we cited above) wrote in express words in the Commonplaces, title on the difference of mortal and venial sin, that voluntary sins against the law of God are altogether mortal: “I have spoken,” says he, “of venial sin. But when they who have been regenerated knowingly and willingly violate the law of God — as when they embrace impious opinions, or establish them by their approbation, or indulge hatreds, ambition, the flames of lusts, avarice, or by external deeds rush against the law of God, as David seizing another's wife and craftily slaying her husband — these actions against conscience are mortal sins.” Thus he. Since therefore voluntary adultery, or murder, or another like sin, even by Philip's own witness, is mortal, and yet (as we showed before) can stand with faith, it manifestly follows either that what the same Philip with the other Lutherans teaches is false — that all sins which stand together with faith are venial — or at least that their judgments fight among themselves, and the one is destroyed by the other, and the one refuted out of the other.
And now the third head — which held that those sins alone which are plainly involuntary can stand with faith — is from what has been said most openly proved false. For we have already shown that not only involuntary sins but even voluntary ones, however grave, stand together with faith — except that alone which is contrary to faith, namely heresy or unbelief. And then, sins utterly involuntary, among those who can judge rightly, are not venial, but no sins at all; and if we believe St. Augustine, he speaks contradictions who says “an involuntary sin,” since it is of the notion of sin to be voluntary: “So far,” says Augustine, book On True Religion, chapter 14, “is sin a voluntary evil, that it is in no way sin if it be not voluntary.” Nor does St. Augustine speak of civil judgment, as Philip trifles, but of divine: for he speaks of sin in general, as it comprehends even the sins of the evil Angels, which in no way pertain to civil judgment. But of this Lutheran paradox we shall say more in the disputation on concupiscence, and on free choice.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Refellitur error Lutheranorum. Lutherani, ut supra ostendimus ex Luthe- ro, Melanchthone , Illyrico , Heshusio , et Kemnitio, tria praecipue docent. Primo, pec¬ cata venialia esse illa, quae a Deo non impu¬ tantur, quamvis ex se digna sint poena, ac supplicio sempiterno. Secundo, illa peccata a Deo non imputari, quae simul in homine cum fide, id est, cum fiducia misericordia) consistunt. Tertio, illa sola peccata cum fide consistere, quae sunt involuntaria. Ex quibus sequitur, quarto omnia peccata in infideli¬ bus esse mortalia, et consequenter omnia peccata ex natura sua esse mortalia. De quo 4. cap. (quia commune est etiam quibusdam aliis scriptoribus non Lutheranis) seorsim postea disseremus. Nunc tria priora capita, quse propria videntur esse Lutheranorum, breviter refellamus. Quod igitur primo loco affirmant, peccata venialia esse ea, qua) non imputantur, repug¬ nat aperte Scripturis et Patribus. Scriptura siquidem in iis locis, ubi de peccatis venia¬ libus ex consensu etiam Lutheranorum lo¬ quitur, manifeste docet, oportere a Deo peti remissionem eorum peccatorum : non igitur ea sunt tecta et condonata, vel non imputata CAPUT VIII. 227 (ut ipsi dicunt), sed imputantur, et ligant, ac reum faciunt quamvis facile condonentur, ac remittantur. Convenit inter nos, et Luthera- nos, de venialibus agi Matth. vi : Dimitte nobis debita nostra (1) ; quia justorum etiam est ha)c humilis, et vera confessio. At hic vi¬ demus peti a justis remissionem peccatorum venialium : proinde non fuisse ante condona¬ ta, vel non imputata. Eadem ratio est de lo¬ co illo I Joan. i : Si dixerimus quia pecca¬ tum non /tabemus etc., continuo subjungitur : Si confiteamur peccata nostra, fidelis est, et justus, ut remittat nobis peccata nostra , et emundet nos ab omni iniquitate (2). At si peccata justorum, quia persona gra¬ ta est, non imputarentur, quid opus esset remissione? et cur oporteret confessionem ante praemittere ? nec dissimilis est locus ille Psalm. xxxi : Pro hac (id est, pro remissione peccati) orabit ad te omnis Sanctus in tempore opportuno (3) Et illud Psalm. xcxvm : Tu propitius fuisti eis, et ulciscens in omnes adin¬ ventiones eonim (4). Certe si ulciscebatur Deus peccata servorum suorum fidelium Mo¬ sis, Aaronis, et Samuelis, imputabat eis, nec tegebat, donec purgata essent. Huc etiam pertinet illud Joan. xm : Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet (5), quod sancti Pa¬ tres ad peccata venialia pertinere docuerunt. Qui enim lotus est ab impietate et lethalibus criminibus, adhuc eget lotione pedum, id est, remissione venialium, quae instar pulve¬ ris in via vitae hujus pedibus nostris adhae¬ rent : « Dominus dicit (inquit S. Augustinus tract. 56. in Joan.) : Veritas loquitur, quod opus habeat pedes lavare etiam ille, qui lo¬ tus est. Quid fratres mei, quid putatis, nisi quia homo in sancto quidem Baptismo totus abluitur, non praeter pedes, sed totus omni¬ no : verumtamen cum in rebus humanis postea vivitur, utique terra calcatur. Ipsi igi¬ tur humani affectus, sine quibus in hac mor¬ talitate non vivitur, quasi pedes sunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur, et sic afficimur, ut si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos decipiamus, et veritas in nobis non sit. Quotidieigitur lavatpedes nobis, qui inter¬ pellat pro nobis, et quotidie nos opus habe¬ re, ut pedes lavemus, id est, vias spiritua¬ lium gressuum dirigamus, in ipsa oratione Dominica confitemur, cum dicimus : Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Si enim confiteamur sic¬ ut scriptum est, peccata nostra, profecto il¬ le qui lavit pedes discipulorum suorum, fide¬ lis est et justus, qui dimittat nobis peccata nostra, et mundet nos ab omni iniquitate, id est, usque ad pedes, quibus conversamur in terra. » Ha)c S. Augustinus. Ex quibus om¬ nibus perspicuum esse potest, quam falso et temere dixerit Philippus (ut citavimus cap. 4.) peccata venialia esse peccata condonata. Et Illyricus, esse peccata, qua) propter fidem in Christum non imputantur, et Heshusiusj esse peccata tecta, et Calvinus, esse peccata quie iis, qui sunt in Christo Jesu, non impu¬ tantur. Quod autem secundo loco dicunt, illa pec¬ cata non imputari, ac per hoc esse venialia, qua) simul cum fide consistunt, facili nego¬ tio convincitur esse falsum. Nam si id ita es¬ set, ut adversarii volunt, sequeretur nullum esse mortale peccatum pra)ter infidelitatem, ac proinde sacrilegia, homicidia, adulteria, furta, rapinas, non esse peccata mortalia, quod est et contra manifestam Christi, et Apostolorum doctrinam, et contra ipsorum Lutheranorum sententiam. Sequi autem ex dogmate adversariorum, nullum esse mor¬ tale peccatum praeter infidelitatem, proba¬ tur. Nam nullum est peccatum, quod fidem necessario excludat, praeter id quod ei op¬ ponitur, quod est infidelitas. Quod idem ex¬ perientia ipsa manifeste testatur : nam si per fidem intelligatur assensus certus et in¬ dubitatus, his omnibus rebus adhibitus, quas Ecclesia ex verbo Dei scripto, vel tradito credendas esse docet, multos videmus inter Catholicos publicos peccatores, homicidas, fornicarios, fures, ebriosos, qui tamen sine ulla dubitatione fidem habent iis omnibus, qua) Ecclesia credenda proponit. Si vero per fidem accipiamus id quod Lu- therani falso sibi persuaserunt esse fidem, fiduciam videlicet misericordia) propter Chri¬ stum, et quidem specialem, qua unusquisque certo credat, et confidat, sibi Deum propter Christum esse propitium, videmus plurimos inter haereticos qui ejusmodi fidem se habe¬ re dicant, cum vitam turpissimam ducant, et errores etiam gravissimos de Christo, de Ecclesia, de Sacramentis, de peccatis, de justificatione, caeterisque rebus ad doctrinam fidei pertinentibus doceant. Nam huic spe- (1) Matth. VI, 12. - (2) I Joan. I, 8, 9. - (3) Psal. XXXI, 6. - (4) Psal. XCXVIII, 8. - (5) Joan. XIII, 10. 228 LIBER I. ciali fidei Luthcranorum non repugnat quae- libet infidelitas, sed ea solum, qua quis non certo credit sibi Deum esse propitium. Quod si torte Lutherani dicant, se nullos habere errores, et fidem illam suam specia¬ lem esse non posse in iis, qui homicidia, adulteria, et alia id genus peccata commit¬ tunt : suis dimissis aliarum sectarum homi¬ nes parumper inspiciant. Certe Calvinianos in erroribus multis et magnis versari, atque adeo blasphemos et sacrilegos esse neque ignorant, neque tacent, et tamen negare non poterunt, eos sibi certo persuadere se Deo propter Christum esse carissimos, ac proinde habere fidem illam specialem, quae apud eos sola justificat. Quod idem dicere possumus de Anabaptistis, de Trinitariis, et aliis, qui Lutheranis haeretici sunt, et tamen certo credunt sibi Deum propter Christum esse propitium. Quod si fiducia illa concipi potest ab iis, qui in erroribus contra verbum Dei pertinacissimi sunt, cur non poterit etiam concipi ab iis, quos homicidia, adulteria, furta, et alia similia peccata delectant? At (inquit Philippus in locis, titulo de dis¬ crimine peccati mortalis et venialis) qui ha¬ bet propositum peccandi, non accedit ad Deum, sed eum contemnit ac fugit : fides autem ad Deum accedit per Christum Pon¬ tificem : igitur impossibile est haec duo si¬ mul consistere, propositum peccandi et fi¬ dem. Respondeo, eum qui habet propositum peccandi, si apprehendat Deum ut justum judicem, et qui peccata, dum in nobis ma¬ nent, odit, ac punit, quemadmodum eum Catholici apprehendunt, sine dubio fugere a Deo : at si Deum apprehendat (ut eum Lu¬ therani apprehendunt) ita misericordem et facilem, ut peccata in nobis vere inhaerentia et viventia nolit punire, sed tegere, ac pro eis Christi justitiam, et merita nobis impu¬ tare; nego eum ad Deum non accedere. Qui enim sibi persuadere potuit peccata vere in se manentia sibi a Deo non imputari, et iis non obstantibus se Deo propter Christum ca¬ rum, et gratum esse ; eadem facilitate cre¬ dere poterit, propositum peccandi sibi a Deo non imputari, dummodo Christi merita, sua faciat per fidem. Certe Calvinus non existi¬ mavit impossibile propositum peccandi cum fide conjungere, quoniam in Antidoto canon. 28. sess. 6. Concilii Tridentini scripsit, etiam in magnis lapsibus remanere fidem veram et vivam. Ac non ipse quidem Lutherus tam certo credidit, non posse duo illa conjungi, nt credidit Philippus. Nam in lib. de capti- vit. Babylon, cap. de Baptismo scribit, non posse hominem damnari quantiscumque pec¬ catis, si stet, vel redeat fides. Quo loco per illam disjunctionem <' si stet, vel redeat fi¬ des », aperte significavit, non se certo sta¬ tuisse, non posse stare fidem cum magnis lapsibus. Habemus igitur cx ipsa natura, et ratione fidei, omnia peccata cum ipsa fide posse consistere, praeter infidelitatem, vel diffiden¬ tiam fidei, vel fiduciae contrariam : ac per hoc omnia peccata praeter infidelitatem, vel diffidentiam praedictam, esse venialia, si omnia illa dici debent venialia, quae fidem non excludunt. Sed probatur hoc idem rur¬ sus ex doctrina Patrum, et ex communi sensu et consensu omnium gentium. Nam si peccata omnia, vel saltem graviora, quae nos mortalia nominamus, cum fide consistere non possent, sequeretur non posse hominem Christianum labi in fornicationem, furtum, homicidium, aut aliud simile peccatum, quin eodem momento fieret haereticus. Nam fi¬ dem justificantem amitteret, quae sola est vera fides : qui autem fidem veram amit¬ tunt, haeretici dicuntur. At hoc repugnat to¬ ti antiquitati, et sensui, ac consensui om¬ nium gentium. Semper enim in Ecclesia la¬ tissimum discrimen agnitum est inter haereti¬ cos, et malos Catholicos, cum illi discessio¬ nem faciant ab Ecclesia, isti intra Ecclesiam perdite vivant ; illi doctrinam oppugnent, isti disciplinam violent ; illi zizaniis, isti pa¬ leis ; illi lupis rapacibus, isti morbidis ovibus comparentur. Denique inauditum est in Ecclesia, ut ob solam fornicationem, vel adulterium, aut aliud simile peccatum Christianus aliquis fi¬ dem amisisse, atque adeo infidelis, aut hac- reticus factus fuisse dicatur. S. Augustinus in lib. quaestionum in Matth. quaest. 11 : (( Inter haereticos, inquit, et malos Catholi¬ cos hoc interest, quod haeretici falsa credunt; illi autem vera credentes, non vivunt ita ut credunt. » Et lib. iv. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, cap. 18 : « Constituamus, inquit, aliquem castum, continentem, non avarum, non idolis servientem, hospitalitatem indi¬ gentibus ministrantem, non cujusquam ini¬ micum, non contentiosum, patientem, quie¬ tum, nullum aemulantem, nulli invidentem, sobrium, frugalem, sed haereticum : nulli utique dubium est propter hoc solum, quod haereticus est, regnum Dei non possessurum. CAPUT IX. 229 Constituamus alium fornicantem, immun¬ dum, luxuriosum, avarum, vel etiam aper¬ tius Idolis dedicatum, veneficum discordio¬ sum, contentiosum, aemulum, animosum, seditiosum, invidum, ebriosum, comessato- rem, sed Catholicum : numquid propter hoc solum, quod Catholicus est, regnum Dei pos¬ sidebit, agens talia, de quibus sic concludit Apostolus, quae praedico vobis, sicut praedi¬ xi, quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt? Si hoc dicimus, nos ipsos se¬ ducimus. » Neque opus est alia Patrum te¬ stimonia superaddere, cum res adeo sit per¬ spicua, ut mirum sit ab ullo hominum in du¬ bium revocari potuisse. Probatum igitur est, sequi ex doctrina Lu- theranorum, ut adulteria, homicidia, furta et alia id genus peccata sint omnia venialia, cum fidem utcumque ea accipiant non ex¬ cludant. Esse autem hoc dogma contra do¬ ctrinam Christi, et .Apostolorum, et contra eorumdem Lutheranorum sententiam, qua} eiat assumptio nostri argumenti, facile potest obstendi. Christus enim Matth. v : Qui dixe¬ rit , inquit , fratri suo fatue, reus erit gehenna; ignis (1). Ex quo intelligimus, verbum con¬ tumeliosum in fratrem peccatum esse lethalc. Et Matth. xxv : Ite, maledicti in ignem setemum : Esurivi enim, et non dedistis mihi manducare, etc (2). Ex quo loco recte colligit S. Augusti¬ nus lib. de fide et operibus cap. 13. non communicare bona sua cum indigentibus, et multo magis rapere aliena, peccata esse n*>r- talia, etiam in his, qui fidem nunquam ami¬ serunt : « Erit ergo, inquit, aeterna combustio, et eos in illam ituros veritas dicit, quorum non fidem, sed bona opera defuisse declara¬ vit. » Apostolus autem, ut paulo ante idem Augustinus commemoravit, 1 ad Corinth. vi. ad Ephes. i. et ad Galatas quinto, enumerat aliquot genera peccatorum, et subjungit : Qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non consequen - turos (3). Denique Philippus Melanchtlion (ut supra citavimus) disertis verbis scripsit in Locis communibus, tit. de discrimine peccati mor¬ talis et venialis, peccata voluntaria contra legem Dei, omnino esse mortalia, a Dixi, in¬ quit, de veniali peccato. Sed cum hi, qui fuerunt renati scientes, et volentes violant legem Dei, ut cum amplectuntur impias opi¬ niones, aut stabiliunt eas sua approbatione, aut indulgent odiis, ambitione, flammis libi¬ dinum, avaritia}, aut externis factis ruunt con¬ tra legem Dei, ut David rapiens alienam con¬ jugem, et astute maritum interficiens. Ha} actiones contra conscientiam sunt peccata mortalia. » Hsec ille. Cum igitur voluntarium adulterium, vel homicidium, vel aliud simile peccatum, ipso etiam teste Philippo, sit mor¬ tale, et tamen (ut ante ostendimus) cum fide consistere possit, manifeste sequitur, aut fal¬ sum esse quod idem Philippus cum Luthe- ranis cccteris docet, omnia peccata, quae si¬ mul cum fide consistunt, esse venialia, aut certe ipsorum sententias inter se esse pugnan¬ tes, et alteram ab altera destrui, atque unam ex altera refutari. Jam vero tertium caput, quod continebat, illa sola peccata, qua} sunt plane involunta¬ ria, cum fide posse consistere, ex iis qua} dicta sunt apertissime convinrit esse falsum. Jam enim ostendimus, non solum peccata involuntaria, sed etiam voluntaria, quam- tumvis gravia, simul cum fide consistere prader id solum, quod fidei contrarium est, haeresim videlicet, aut infidelitatem. Deinde peccata prorsus involuntaria apud eos, qui recte judicare possunt, non venialia, sed nulla sunt. Et si S. Augustino credimus, repugnan¬ tia loquitur, qui dicit peccatum involuntarium cum de ratione peccati sit esse voluntarium. «Usque adeo», inquit Augustinus lib. de vera religione, cap. 14, « peccatum volunta¬ rium est malum, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium. » Neque loquitur S. Augustin. de Judicio civili, ut Philippus nu¬ gatur, sed divino. Nam loquitur de peccato in genere, ut comprehendit etiam peccata malorum Angelorum, qua} ad judicium civi¬ le nullo modo pertinent. Sed de hoc para- doxo Lutherano in disputatione de concu¬ piscentia, et de libero arbitrio plura dice¬ mus.