Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book I: On Sin, Mortal and Venial
Chapter 9: That venial sin is by its nature distinguished from mortal is shown from the Scriptures
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).
Now at last we come to the establishing of the true judgment, from whose establishment not only will all the above-said errors be plucked up by the root, but there will also be refuted the judgments of those writers who in some measure have departed from the common doctrine of the theologians and of the Church. It is to be proved by us, then, that venial sin is by its own nature distinguished from mortal; and that, without any relation either to predestination, or to the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate, it is of such a kind that it deserves punishment indeed, but not eternal; and offends God, but not unto the dissolution of friendship. This will be proved first from the Scriptures; then from the ecclesiastical definitions; next from the doctrine of the Fathers; last from reason.
As to the first: in Matthew 5 we read thus: whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. In this place the Lord does not look to predestination, nor discuss what the divine mercy can or will do; but he adjudges the things themselves, and the measure of the sins. Now he makes three degrees of anger: one, of that which is so light that it bursts forth into no word; another, of that which is somewhat graver, yet reaches not to open reviling; a third, of that which is gravest, and brings forth manifest reviling. For although the inward anger can at times be gravest and yet be dissembled outwardly, nevertheless ordinarily, the greater it is, the more it betrays itself; and therefore the Lord calls that the lightest anger which is manifested by no outward sign. As to what is said in the second degree — whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca — it is not altogether certain what it properly signifies. St. Augustine, book 1 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chapter 9, and St. Gregory, book 21 of the Morals, chapter 5, write that it is an interjection of one angered, which signifies nothing determinately, but only expresses that the mind is stirred. Which interpretation is probable, above all since Augustine says he received it from the Hebrews. For although such an interjection is not found in the Scriptures, nor in the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionaries which now exist, yet it could have been in use at that time and afterward have grown obsolete; nor again is it necessary that absolutely all words be found in dictionaries. Finally, that that word was not translated into Greek or Latin is an argument that nothing is properly signified by it. But St. Jerome, in the commentary on this place, noted that the word Raca signifies an empty man; for from the verb ruq, which is to empty, comes the noun req, empty, and, an aleph being added after the manner of the Syrians, it becomes raqa. But what the same author adds — that in this place it signifies a man empty of brain — is not without difficulty: both because in the Scriptures that word is not easily found in this sense, and because to call a man empty of brain seems no less a reviling than to call him a fool. And I cannot contain myself from touching briefly, in this place, the follies of Theodore Beza. For he, in the annotation on this place, reprehends the Hebrew version of this Gospel for having, in place of Raca, ra‘a — because (as he says) it is a greater reviling to call a man ra‘a, that is, evil, than fool; and yet he himself suspects that Christ in his own tongue said rasha‘ for that which we have as Raca — not observing that a greater reviling is signified by the word rasha‘ than by the word ra‘a, for the former signifies impious, the latter evil, and is very often taken not for evil, that is, wicked, but for thin, or deformed, or lean — to omit that the letter shin is not rendered in Latin by Ch, but by Sc, or by S simply, as is evident in the words Hosanna, Salomon, Sabaoth, Sabbath, and the like. It is probable, then, that raca in this place signifies a man empty of wealth, or of dignity, or at least vain and idle; for in these significations that word is found in the Scriptures, and it wounds far less than the word fool. But whatever be the proper signification of that word, this suffices us in this place: that a less grave sin is designated by raca than by “thou fool.” Now to these three degrees of sins answer three liabilities: of the judgment, of the council, and of hell fire. And he is called liable to the judgment (as St. Augustine rightly explains in the place noted above) who has done something whence he can be called into judgment, that his cause may be sifted. He is called liable to the council whose fault is certain, but it is doubtful how great it is and what punishment it deserves; and therefore the judges come together in council to define the measure of the punishment. He is called liable to hell fire whose fault, and the measure of the fault, and thereby also the gravity of the punishment, is certain. And that by the gehenna of fire is signified eternal death in the lower world, Hilary, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Theophylact teach in the commentary on this place. Jerome says nothing in this place, but in the commentary on chapter 10, on those words, fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell, he writes that by the name of gehenna in the Gospel eternal punishments are always signified. From these things, then, an argument of this kind is framed. Manifest reviling, Christ being witness — nay, judge — makes one liable to hell fire, and thereby is a mortal sin. Anger expressed by the sound of the voice, but not reaching to the evil of reviling, makes one liable to the council — that is, it is not agreed whether it deserves gehenna, but it is worthy either of that punishment or of a lesser. There are found, therefore, certain sins which are too light to deserve the gehenna of fire. For to what purpose would a council be convened to discern whether some fault should be punished with the gehenna of fire, if all faults deserved the gehenna of fire? There are, then, some faults which by the divine judgment are to be visited only with temporal punishment. Again, the anger which has burst forth by no external sign makes one liable not to the council, but to the judgment — that is, it is not agreed whether it deserves some punishment, or none; from which it follows that without doubt, if it deserves punishment, it deserves temporal, not eternal — since it is a lighter fault than that would be about which there could be doubt whether it deserved temporal or eternal punishment. Nor does Beza's annotation on this place of the Gospel seem worthy of an answer. For he writes that unequal sins are here described by the Lord, and that it is less to be made liable to the judgment than to the council, and to the council than to hell fire; yet he adds that all sins, though unequal among themselves, deserve death, because the Apostle writes, Romans 6, that the wage of sin is death. But if by death the Apostle understands the same as Christ by gehenna — since he opposes it to eternal life, saying, the wages of sin is death… the grace of God, life everlasting — it cannot be that all sins deserve death unless all deserve gehenna; and we have already demonstrated, from Christ's sentence, that not all sins make one liable to the gehenna of fire. The wage of every sin, then, is not death, but only of that sin which is opposed to grace and friendship with God, of which the Apostle was speaking. And so to the diverse degrees of sins which are described by the Lord there answer not diverse degrees of torments in gehenna, as Beza judges — for if it were so, the Lord would not rightly have said of the third degree alone, “shall be in danger of hell fire” — but there answer diverse degrees of punishments, of which some are eternal, others temporal, others most brief. And so much for the first testimony of Scripture.
Two other testimonies are had in Matthew 23 and Luke 6, in which places the Lord compares certain sins to things by their nature lightest, others to things gravest. Blind guides (says Matthew 23), who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel. Here we see certain sins compared to gnats, others to camels; for the Lord arraigns the Pharisees for easily transgressing the gravest precepts of the law while most diligently observing the minute ones, and thus studiously guarding against the lightest sins while perpetrating the greatest without scruple. And it is agreed that between a gnat and a camel there is so great a difference from the nature of the thing that there seems to be almost no proportion between them. Again, Luke 6: why seest thou the mote in thy brother's eye: but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not? Certainly between a mote and a beam there is, from the nature of the thing, so great a difference that a mote can be lightly carried, while a beam is unbearable, and not only destroys the eye, but even crushes the whole body of a man, if it be laid upon him. But if all sins by their nature were worthy of everlasting death, who would believe that some could be so extenuated by the Lord himself as to be compared with a mote and a gnat — above all when others were compared by the same Lord to camels and beams?
There is another testimony, Luke 12: I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite. By the last mite the Fathers understand the minute and lightest sins, for which satisfaction must be made in the prison of purgatory, unless in this life they have been purged or released. Tertullian, in the book On the Soul, chapter 17 [al. 58], by the last farthing, or mite, expounds each small offense to be purged before the resurrection. Origen, homily 35 on Luke, says that they pay the last farthing who owe a little, and are detained in the prison up to a fixed time. Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 5 of Matthew: “This is what he says: thou shalt not go out of the prison until thou pay even the minute sins.” Finally Cyprian, book 4, epistle 2, Ambrose in the commentary on chapter 12 of Luke, and Eusebius of Emesa (or rather Caesarius of Arles), homily 3 on the Epiphany, write that by the last farthing are understood those sins which after this life are expiated in the purgatorial places — which without doubt are venial; for he who departs from this life with mortal sin straightway receives the wage of sin, namely everlasting death. Now then, since the debt of one mite is least, and in no tribunal can anyone be condemned to death for so slight a debt, if the Lord rightly compared venial sins with such a debt, it follows that venial sins by their nature in no way deserve eternal death.
Moreover the Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 3, compares venial sins to things by their nature lightest — wood, hay, stubble: if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. In which place (as Ambrose expounds, sermon 20 on Psalm 118; Jerome, book 2 against Jovinian; Augustine, book 21 On the City of God, chapter 26; Gregory, book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 39; and others) the Apostle signifies by gold and silver and precious stones the perfect and praiseworthy works, which, examined in the judgment of God, earn nothing but a reward; by wood, hay, and stubble, the useless works, worthy of reprehension, but venial, which indeed bring loss and need purgation, yet do not make one fall from salvation. But blessed Paul would never have compared venial sins with hay and stubble unless they were in very truth, as St. Gregory speaks in the place noted, minute and lightest sins; for sins by their nature mortal would rather have had to be compared to iron, or bronze, or lead (as the same Gregory says in the same place).
Let there come to these the testimony of the Apostle St. James, who in the first chapter of his epistle distinguishes temptation from sin, and sin from crime: every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. Where St. James does not distinguish the motion of concupiscence into involuntary and voluntary, nor say that every voluntary motion is mortal sin and every involuntary one venial, as Philip Melanchthon would have wished. But he distinguishes three motions of concupiscence: one involuntary, by which one is incited to sin without any consent of his own, when he says, every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured — and this motion the Apostle does not say is sin, but the cause of sin, if, namely, consent come to it. The second motion he will have to be imperfectly voluntary, when he adds: then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. And that this motion is imperfectly voluntary, and hence a sin, but venial, is evident: because it is named sin, and yet is distinguished from the sin completed and begetting death; from which we understand that this second motion is not completed sin, nor begets death, and thereby is not mortal sin. The third, finally, he adjoins as perfectly voluntary; and that this motion is mortal sin the Apostle declares, saying: but sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. Nor indeed ought we to suspect that completed sin is here called only the sin perpetrated in deed — as though illicit desires could not be named mortal sins unless they be fulfilled in deed. For since among the first ten precepts of the law are distinctly named, as two diverse commandments, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; and since the Lord in the Gospel, Matthew 5, said, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart: it cannot be doubtful that the completed sin, begetting death, is the concupiscence to which perfect and completed assent is given, though it never be fulfilled in deed. Nor can the Lutherans answer that that sin of which St. James speaks — when he says, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin — is venial by the mercy of God, because it is not imputed to the faithful, and not such by its nature. For they say that those things only are not imputed which are plainly involuntary; but this of which we speak is not altogether involuntary — for otherwise St. James could not have distinguished the concupiscence alluring and bringing forth sin from the sin itself which is brought forth by that concupiscence; since (as we said a little before) it cannot be feigned how concupiscence should bring forth sin except by drawing consent from the will.
Let there come last two places in which the Scriptures speak of certain sins far more mildly than they are wont to speak of those which by the consensus of all are deadly sins. Matthew 12: every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. It is assuredly one thing that an idle word is not without fault, and therefore to be sifted in the day of judgment; another: Go into everlasting fire; Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness; Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity — and other things of that kind which occur everywhere in the Gospels. Ephesians 5: But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Not rashly did the blessed Apostle, when he had pronounced that six kinds of sins are to be guarded against — those, namely, which among the gentiles were scarcely acknowledged as sins: fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, obscene words, foolish talking, and scurrility — adjoin of the three former only that they who do such things have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. For he wished, namely, to teach that the three latter ought indeed to be foreign to the sanctified mouth of the faithful, yet are not from their kind such as exclude from the inheritance of Christ and of God. Nor has that any place here which the adversaries are wont to say — that there are certain venial sins which do not exclude from the kingdom of God, but that these are not such by their nature, but by the mercy of God not imputing them. For, as we have often said, they acknowledge those only as venial, and say those only are not imputed, which are involuntary; but the sins of which Christ and Paul here treat are voluntary — namely, words idle, less than honorable, foolish, scurrilous.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Peccatum veniale natura sua distingui a mor¬ tali, ostenditur ex Scripturis. . Nunc tandem ad veram sententiam com¬ probandam accedimus, ex cujus comproba¬ tione non solum supradicti errores omnes radicitus evellentur, sed etiam refutabuntur (l) Matth. V, 22. - (2) !d. XXV, 41. - (3) Gal. V, 21. 230 LIBER I. sententiae eorum scriptorum, qui a communi Theologorum, et Ecclesiae doctrina qm. /is ratione discesserunt. Probandum igitur no¬ bis, peccatum veniale ex natura sua distin¬ gui a mortali , ac sine ulla relatione vel ad prcedistinationem, vel ad misericordiam Dei, vel ad statum renatorum, esse ejusmodi, ut poenam quidem mereatur, sed non aeternam ; et Deum offendat, sed non usque ad amici- tiae dissolutionem. Id primum probabitur ex Scripturis ; tum ex definitionibus eccle¬ siasticis ; deinde ex doctrina Patrum; po¬ stremo ex ratione. Quod attinet ad primum, Matth. v. sic le¬ gimus : Quid irascitur fratri suo, reus erit ju¬ dicio ; qui dixerit raca, reus erit concilio; qui dixerit fatue , reus erit gehennee ignis (1). Hoc loco non respicit Dominus praidestinationem* neque discutit, quid possit, aut velit divina misericordia ; sed res ipsas dijudicat, et pec¬ catorum mensuram. Facit autem tres gradus iracundiae, unum ejus, quae ita levis est, ut in vocem nullam erumpat ; alterum ejus, quae paulo gravior est, non tamen pervenit usque ad apertum convicium; tertium ejus, _ quae gravissima est, et manifestum convicium parit. Quamvis enim possit interdum iracundia interior esse gravissima, et tamen dissimu¬ lari extex-ius ; nihilominus ordinarie quo est major, eo se magis prodit, et ideo Dominus levissimam iracundiam vocat eam, quae non manifestatur ullo signo exteriore. Quod vero dicitur in secundo gradu : Qui dixerit fratri suo raca, non est omnino certum quid proprie significet. S. Augustinus lib. i. de sermone Domini in monte, cap. 9. et S. Gregorius lib. xxi. Moral. cap. 5. scribunt, esse interjectionem irascentis, quae nihil de- teimiinate significet, sed solum exprimat ani¬ mum esse commotum. Quae interpretatio piebabilis est, praesertim cum dicat Augu¬ stinus, se id accepisse ab Hebraeis. Quamvis enim non inveniatur in Scripturis ejusmodi inteijectio, neque in Dictionariis, Ilebxaicis, et Chaldaicis, quae nunc extant, potuit tamen eo tempore fuisse in usu, ac deinde obsole¬ visse : neque etiam necesse est in Dictiona¬ riis omnes omnino voces invenii-i. Denique quod ea vox translata non fuerit in G ne cum aut Latinum, argumento est, nihil ea piopiie significari. Caeterum S. Hieronymus in com¬ mentar. hujus loci annotavit vocem Raca, si¬ gnificare hominem vacuum. Nam a verbo ■pvi quod estcvacuare, fit nomen pT vacuus, et addito s more Syrorum, fit api. Sed quod addit idem auctor hoc loco sig¬ nificare hominem vacuum cerebi-o, non caret difficultate ; tum quia in Scripturis non facile invenitur ea vox in hoc sensu ; tum quia vocai'e hominem vacuum cerebro, non videtur esse minus convicium, quam si vo¬ cetur stultus. Non possum autem me conti¬ nere, quin Theodori Bezax ineptias hoc loco paucis perstringam. Is enim in annotatione ad hunc locum versionem IIebi'aieam hujus Evangelii reprehendit, quod pro Raca habeat 5-59*1, quia (ut ipse dicit) majus convicium est vocare hominem ;*;3H, id est, malum, quam fatuum, et tamen ipse idem suspicatur Christum sua lingua dixisse 90*5, pro eo quod nos habemus Raca; neque animadvertit ma¬ jus convicium significari per vocem 901, quam per vocem illa enim impium sigidficat, haec malum, et saepissime accipi¬ tur non pro malo, id est, sceleixito, sed pro tenui, aut deformi, aut macilento, ut omit¬ tam quod littera & non redditur latine per Ch, sed per Sc, aut per S, simpliciter, ut pa¬ tet in vocibus, Hosanna, Salomon, Sabaoth, Sabathum, et similibus. Probabile igitur est, raca hoc loco significax*e hominem vacuum opibus, aut dignitate, aut certe vanum et otiosum. Nam et in his significationibus in¬ venitur ea vox in Scriptuins, et longe minus l«dit, quam vox fatuus. Sed quidquid sit de propria significatione ejus vocabuli, illud nobis hoc loco satis est, minus grave pecca¬ tum desexabiper raca quam per fatue. His autem tribus gradibus peccatorum respondent tres reatus, judicii, concilii, et gehennae ignis. Et quidem x-eus judicii dici¬ tur (ut recte explicat S. Augustinus loco su- pra notato) qui aliquid fecit, unde in judicium vocari possit, ut causa ejus discutiatur. Reus concilii dicitur, cujus culpa certa est, sed ambiguum quanta sit, et quam pcenam me¬ reatur, et ideo judices inter se conveniunt in concilium, ut definint poenae mensuram. Reus gehennae ignis dicitur, cujus culpa et mensura culpae , ac per hoc etiam poenae gravitas certa est. Significari autem per ge¬ hennam ignis, mortem aeternam apud inferos docent in commentario hujus loci Hilaiius, Augustinus, Chrysostomus, etTheophylactus. Hieronymus hoc loco nihil dicit, sed in com¬ mentario, cap. 10. in illa verba : Timete eum, (1) Matth. V. 22. CAPUT IX. qui potest aniinnm et corpus perdere in gehen¬ nam (1), scribit, nomine gehenna: semper in Evangelio significari poenas aeternas. Ex his igitur conficitur argumentum ejus- mod : Manifes:um convicium, teste vel ju¬ dice Christo, facit reum gehennae ignis, ac per hoc est peccatum mortale. Iracundia, sono vocis expressa, sed ad malum convicii non pertingens, facit reum concilii, id est, non constat an mereatur gehennam, sed aut ea poena, aut minore digna est. Inveniuntur igitur peccata quaedam, quae leviora sunt, quam ut gehennam ignis mereantur. Quor¬ sum enim cogeretur concilium ad discernen¬ dum num aliqua culpa gehenna ignis pu¬ nienda esset, si omnes culpae gehennam ignis mirerentur ? Sunt igitur culpae aliquae, quae divino judicio sola poena temporali mulctan- dae sunt. Itursus iracundia, quae nullo signo externo foras erupit, non facit reum concilio, sed judicio ; hoc est, non constat, an merea¬ tur poenam aliquam, an nullam; ex quo sequitur, ut sine dubio, si poenam meretur, temporalem, non aeternam mereatur, cum sit levior culpa, quam ea esset, de qua dubium esse poterat, temporale ne supplicium, an aeternum mereretur. Neque digna videtur responsione annotatio Bezae ad hunc locum Evangelii. Scribit enim inaequalia peccata hic describi a Domino, et minus esse reum fieri judicio, . quam concilio, et concilio, quam gehennae ignis : addit ta¬ men, omnia peccata, quamvis inter se inaequa¬ lia, mortem mereri, quia stipendium peccati mortem esse scribit Apostolus ad Rom. vi. At si per mortem idem intelligit Apostolus, quod per gehennam Christus, 'cum eam vitae aeternae opponat, dicens : Stipendium peccati mors, gratia Dei vita aeterna (2), fieri non po¬ test, ut omnia peccata mortem mereantur, nisi gehennam omnia mereantur. Jam autem demonstravimus ex Christi sententia non omnia peccata reum facere gehennae ignis. Non igitur stipendium est omnis peccati mors, sed ejus tantum peccati, quod opponitur gra- tiaj et amicitiae cum Deo, de quo Apostolus loquebatur. Itaque diversis gradibus pecca¬ torum, qui describuntur a Domino, non re¬ spondent diversi gradus suppliciorum in ge¬ henna, ut Beza existimat, quia si ita esset, non recte Dominus de solo tertio gradu di¬ xisset, reus erit gehennae ignis; sed respondent diversi gradus suppliciorum, quorum alia £3 i sint aeterna, alia temporalia, alia brevis¬ sima. Atque haec de primo testimonio Scri¬ pturae. Alia duo testimonia habentur Mat. xxm. et Luc. vi. in quibus locis Dominus peccata quaedam comparat rebus natura sua levissi¬ mis, alia vero gravissimis. Luces caeci (inquit Mat. xxm) excolantes culicem, camelum autem glutientes (3). Hic videmus peccata quaedam conferri culicibus, alia camelis : arguit enim Dominus Pharisaeos, quod gravissima prae¬ cepta legis facile transgrederentur, minuta vero diligentissime observarent, atque ita peccata levissima studiose caverent, maxima vero sine scrupulo perpetrarent. Constat au¬ tem inter culicem et camelum tantum esse ex natura rei discrimen, ut nulla fere inter ea proportio esse videatur. Rursus Luc. vi : Quid, inquit, vules festucam in oculo fratris lui, trabem autem, quae in ocu¬ lo tuo est, non consideras (4)? Certe inter festu¬ cam et trabem, tanta ex natura rei differentia est, ut festuca leviter portari queat, trabs autem sit importabilis, et non solum oculum destruat, sed etiam totum corpus hominis opprimat, si illi imponatur. Si autem omnia peccata ex natura sua morte sempiterna digna essent, quis credat, ita quaedam ab ipso Domino extenuari potuisse, ut cum fe¬ stuca et culice conferrentur, praesertim cum alia camelis, et trabibus ab eodem Domino fuerint comparata? Est aliud testimonium Lucae xir: Dico tibi, non exies inde, donec etiam novissimum minu¬ tum reddas (0). Per novissimum minutum in- telligunt Patres peccata minuta et levissima, pro quibus in carcero purgatorii satisfacien¬ dum est, nisi in hac vita purgata vel relaxata fuerint. Tertullianus in lib. de anima, cap. xvn, per novissimum quadrantem, sive minu¬ tum, exponit modica quaeque delicta pur¬ ganda ante resurrectionem. Origenes homil. 33. in Lucam, dicit, eos reddere novissimum quadrantem, qui modicum debent, et usque ad certum tempus detinentur in carcere. Hieronymus in comment. ad cap v. Matth. : « Hoc est, inquit, quod dicit, non egredieris de carcere, donec etiam minuta peccata per¬ solvas. » Denique Cyprianus lib. iv. epist. 2. Ambrosius in commentar, ad cap. xii. Lucae, et Eusebius Emissenus (seu potius Caesarius Arclatensis) homil. 3. de Epiphania, scribunt, per novissimum quadrantem intelligi ea pec- (1) Matth. X, 28. - (2) Rom. VI, 21. — (3) Matth. XXIII, 24.- (4) Luc. VI, 41. - (5) Luc. XII, 59. 232 UBER I. cata, quae post hanc vitam in locis purgato¬ riis expiantur, qua) sine dubio venialia sunt. Nam qui cum peccato mortali decedit ex hac vita, continuo stipendium peccati, mortem videlicet sempiternam accipit. Jam igitur cum debitum unius minuti minimum sit, ne¬ que in ullo tribunali pro tam exiguo debi¬ to ullus damnari possitjad mortem, si Domi¬ nus peccata venialia cum tali debito recte comparavit, sequitur, ut peccata venialia ex natura sua mortem aeternam nulla ratione Mereantur. Adhaec Apostolus Paulus, I Corinth. m, peccata venialia rebus natura sua levissimis comparat, ligno, fceno, stipulis : Si quis , inquit, superaedificat supra fundamentum hoc, aurum , argentum, lapides pretiosos, ligna , fcenum, stipulam, uniuscujusque opus mani¬ festum erit. Dies enim declarabit, quia in igne revelabitur , et uniuscujusque opus quale-sit ignis probabit. Si cujus opus manserit quod super aedificavit, mercedem accipiet : si cujus opus arserit, detrimentum patietur, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Quo loco (ut exponunt Ambrosius sermon 20. in Psalm. 118. Hieronymus lib. ii. adversus Jovinia- num, Augustinus lib. xxi de civitate Deicap. 26. Gregorius lib. i. Dialogorum cap. 39 et alii) significat Apostolus per aurum et argen¬ tum, et lapides pretiosos, opera perfecta et laudabilia, quae in judicio Dei examinata, ni¬ hil nisi mercedem promerentur : per lignum, fcenum, et stipulas opera inutilia et reprehen¬ sione digna, sed venialia, quae detrimentum quidem adferant et purgatione indigeant, non tamen a salute excidere faciant. Nun¬ quam autem B. Paulus peccata venialia cum fceno et stipulis comparasset, nisi revera es¬ sent, ut loquitur S. Gregorius loco notato, peccata minuta, atque levissima. Peccata enim ex natura sua mortalia ferro potius, aut a)ri, vel plumbo (ut ibidem idem Grego¬ rius dicit) comparanda fuissent. Accedat his testimonium S. Jacobi Aposto¬ li, qui in 1. cap. sua) epistola) distinguit ten- tationem a peccato, et peccatum a crimine : Unusquisque, inquit, lentatura concupiscentia sua abstractus, et illectus. Concupiscentia vero cum conceperit, parit peccatum : peccatum vero cum consummatum fuerit, generat mor¬ tem (1). Ubi S. Jacobus non distinguit motus concupiscentia) in involuntarium, et volun¬ tarium : nec dicit omnem motum volunta¬ rium esse peccatum mortale, omnem invo¬ luntarium esse veniale, ut Philippus Melan- chthon voluisset. Sed distinguit tres motus concupiscentia) ; unum involuntarium, quo quis ad peccatum incitatur, sine ullo suo consensu, cum ait : Unusquisque tenlalur a concupiscentia sua abstractus et illectus ; et hunc inotum non dicit Apostolus esse pecca¬ tum, sed causam peccati, si nimirum accedat consensus. Alterum motum vult esse imper¬ fecte voluntarium, cum addit : Concupiscen¬ tia vero cum conceperit, parit peccatum. Esse autem hunc motum imperfecte voluntarium, et proinde peccatum, sed veniale, patet, quia nominatur peccatum, et tamen distinguitur a peccato consummato, et mortem generan¬ te. Ex quo intelligimus hunc secundum mo¬ tum non esse peccatum consummatum, nec generare mortem, ac per hoc non esse pecca¬ tum mortale. Tertium denique adjungit per¬ fecte voluntarium, ct hunc motum esse pec¬ catum mortale, declarat Apostolus, dicens : Peccatum vero cum consummatum fuerit, ge¬ nerat mortem. Neque vero suspicari debemus, peccatum consummatum hoc loco dici solum peccatum opere perpetratum, quasi desideria illicita mortalia peccata nominari non possent, nisi opere compleantur. Nam cum inter prima decem praecepta legis distincte nominentur, tanquam duo diversa mandata : Non moecha¬ beris, ct : Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui, et cum Dominus in Evangelio Matth. v. dixerit: Qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscen¬ dum eam, jam moechatus est eam in corde suo (3). Dubium essenon potest, quinpeccatum consummatum, et generans mortem, sit concupiscentia, cui perfectus et consummatus adhibetur assensus, tametsi nunquam opere compleatur. Neque respondere possunt Lu- therani, peccatum illud, de quo S. Jacobus loquitur, cum ait : Concupiscentia cum con¬ ceperit, parit peccatum, esse peccatum venia¬ le ex misericordia Dei, quia videlicet fideli¬ bus non imputatur, non autem esse tale ex natura sua. Nam ipsi solum ea dicunt non imputari, qua) sunt plane involuntaria. Hoc autem, de quo loquimur, non est omnino in¬ voluntarium : nam alioqui non potuisset dis¬ tinguere S. Jacobus concupiscentiam illi¬ cientem, et parientem peccatum ab ipso pec¬ cato, quod ab ea concupiscentia paritur. Si¬ quidem (ut paulo ante diximus) non potest (I) i Corinth. 111, 12. - (2) Jacob. I, 14. - (3) Mattii. V. 28. CAPUT X. 233 fingi, quemadmodum concupiscentia peeea- tum, pariat, nisi eliciendo a voluntate con¬ sensum. Accedant ultimo duo loca, in quibus de peccatis quibusdam longe mitius Scripturae loquuntur, quam de iis loqui soleant qua) sunt omnium consensu peccata lethalia, Matth. xii : De omni verbo otioso, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem in die judi¬ cii (1). Aliud profecto est, verbum otiosum non esse sine culpa, et ideo discutiendum in die judicii, aliud vero : Ite in ignem aeternum ; Ligatis manibus et pedibus ejus, projicite eum in tenebras exteriores ; Discedite a me omnes operarii iniquitatis, et alia id genus, qua) pas- sim occurrunt in Evangeliis. Eplies. v : For¬ nicatio, et omnis immunditia, aut avaritia, nec nominetur in vobis, sicut decet Sanctos, aut turpitudo, aut stultiloquium, aut scurrili¬ tas, qux ad rem non pertinet sed magis gratia¬ rum actio . Hoc enim sciole intelli gentes, quod omnis fornicator, aut immundus, aut avarus, quod est idolorum servitus, non habet hxredita- tem in regno Christi et Dei (2). Non temere B. Apostolus cum sex peccatorum genera caven¬ da esse pronuntiasset, qua) videlicet apud g<yitiles vix pro peccatis agnoscebantur, for¬ nicationem, immunditiam, avaritiam, turpia, verba, stultiloquia et scurrilitatem, de tribus prioribus tantum adjunxit, eos, qui talia agunt, non habere hmreditatem in regno Christi et Dei. Nimirum enim docere vole¬ bat, tria posteriora debere quidem esse alie¬ na ab ore sanctificato fidelium, non tamen ex genere suo talia esse qua) excludant ab haereditate Christi et Dei. Neque hic locum habet quod adversarii dicere solent, qua)dam esse peccata venialia, quae non excludant a regno Dei, sed ea non esse talia ex natura sua, sed ex misericordia Dei non imputante. Nam, ut saipc diximus, ea sola venialia ipsi agnoscunt, ac non impu¬ tari dicunt, quae sunt involuntaria. At pecca¬ ta, de quibus hic agunt Christus et Paulus, voluntaria sunt, videlicet verba otiosa, mi¬ nus honesta, stulta, scurrilia.