Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book I: On Sin, Mortal and Venial
Chapter 12: The objections from the Scriptures are dissolved
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).
It remains now briefly to dissolve the objections which are wont to be made against what we have said.
The first objection is taken from the Scriptures which pronounce generally of every sin thus: Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this law, Deuteronomy 27; The soul that sinneth, the same shall die, Ezechiel 18; the wages of sin is death, Romans 6; whosoever… offend in one point, is become guilty of all, James 2; he that shall break one of these least commandments… shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 5. These things are said of sins universally; therefore all sins make one guilty of the divine curse and of eternal death, and exclude from the kingdom of heaven; wherefore all are of themselves mortal, and if any are venial, they have this not from their nature, but from the mercy of God. And lest perchance one say that venial sins are not simply and absolutely sins, and that the Scriptures alleged are to be taken of true and perfect sins, it can be proved from the Apostle John that venial sins are named simply and absolutely sins and iniquities in the divine writings. For he speaks of venials in the first epistle, chapter 1, when he says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” The Apostle James also, in chapter 3 of his epistle, calls venial sins offenses, when he says, in many things we all offend; and the same, in chapter 2, says of offenses generally: whosoever offend in one point is become guilty of all. Finally, if the least commandments cannot be violated without loss of the heavenly kingdom (for to be called least in the kingdom of heaven [is to be excluded]), no sins will be so small that they could not condemn a man, if we be judged by God without mercy.
I answer: although venial sins, if they be compared with mortal, are not perfectly sins, as we taught at the end of the chapter above, yet absolutely they can be named sins, as in the sacred writings they are named. For, according to the common doctrine of the philosophers, being is not said univocally of God and created things, nor of substance and accident; and all created things are imperfect things when compared with the Creator, and accidents are imperfect beings if compared with substance; yet the name of being is absolutely communicated not only to God, but also to created things, and to accidents themselves. And so we do not deny that venial sins can absolutely be called sins, and iniquities, and offenses, and are in fact called by these names in the divine writings; but we say that these words do not belong univocally to mortal and venial sins, and that therefore judgment is not to be pronounced about the things themselves from these words alone; but one must judge from the adjuncts, the antecedents, and what follows, where the divine Scriptures speak of mortal sins, and where of venial.
Further, that in the places brought in the argument the question is not of sins universally, but of mortals only, we can easily prove. First, because if those Scriptures comprehended venial sins, it would follow that just men, for venial sins alone, not only can fall from the life of grace, but in fact do fall: for those Scriptures do not say that the soul that has sinned can die, if God will to impute the sin, but that it plainly dies; nor do they say that he who has not remained in the precepts of the Lord can be cursed, if God will, but that he is already cursed; and they do not say the wage of sin can be death, but that in fact it is; nor does St. James say that he who offends in one can become guilty of all, but that he is become guilty of all; and finally, in the Gospel, the Lord does not say, He that shall break one of these least commandments and shall so teach men will be able to be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but absolutely pronounces that he is to be called least — that is, none — in the kingdom of heaven. But not even the adversaries themselves concede that for venial sins alone a just man falls from the life of grace; or is cursed by the Lord; or becomes guilty of the whole divine law violated; or is straightway excluded from the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom. Therefore those places are to be taken not of venial offenses, but of crimes only. Then, this same is shown from the adjuncts, preceding or following. For that curse of Deuteronomy is referred to the violators of the commandments which had been delivered in that very place — for that is what the pronoun “this” signifies, when it is said, Cursed is he that abideth not in all the things that are written in the book of this law; and those commandments are all of the very gravest — on guarding against idolatry, incest, murder, and the like, which by the consensus of all are crimes and deadly sins. By like reasoning Ezechiel, where he says, The soul that sinneth, the same shall die, enumerates various crimes, which are all from their kind mortal, and indeed among the graver; and therefore he names them abominations, and things to be detested, and impieties; and of such sins it is most rightly said: The soul that sinneth, the same shall die. And now blessed Paul, in the whole sixth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, discourses of that sin which fights with grace and cannot remain together with justice; and which he who has is dead, he who has not is alive — such as are not all sins, but only the deadly, for that grace, justice, and life are not excluded by venials both Catholics and Lutherans admit. Of these sins, then, he concludes at the end of the chapter: the wages of sin is death, but the grace of God, life everlasting. St. James, in his epistle, chapter 2, when he says, whosoever offend in one point is become guilty of all, explains plainly enough that he speaks of crimes, which properly and perfectly are against the law; for he straightway subjoins thus: For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. And why he said that he is guilty of all the commandments who has transgressed one, even though he seem to have observed the rest, St. Augustine gives the cause, in epistle 29 to St. Jerome — whom Bede follows in the commentary on this place, and Oecumenius: because, namely, all the commandments are recalled to one, which is the commandment of love, as the Apostle teaches, Romans 13; for hence it follows that he who violates some one precept consequently violates charity; and he who violates charity in a certain manner violates the whole law: for he becomes simply a transgressor of the law, and guilty of eternal death, as much as if he had never kept any precept. And as — so the author of the Unfinished Work on Matthew, homily 35, in tome 2 of St. John Chrysostom, beautifully teaches — it profits nothing to him who left only one part of his body unarmed, and thence received a wound and perished, that he fortified the remaining members with great labor: so it profits nothing, for escaping eternal death, to keep all the precepts, if one offend and fall in one; since all are connected in charity, and he who violates charity cannot be the friend of God. From these things it is clear that blessed James by the offense in one does not in this place understand any offense whatever, but that only which excludes charity — such as certainly is not the offense which we call venial, seeing that it is found in men just and burning with charity. For that disciple whom Jesus loved was not without charity when he said of himself and the rest: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. Wherefore St. James takes offense far otherwise when he says, chapter 2, whosoever offend in one point is become guilty of all, and when afterward, chapter 3, he says, in many things we all offend: for there he spoke of criminal offense, here of venial; and therefore there, of him who offends in one, he subjoined, he is become guilty of all; but here he added: If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man — where he declared that he speaks of that offense which is opposed to perfection, not of that which is opposed to necessary integrity.
There remains the last place, from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5 — which place beyond the rest Calvin urges, in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 12. Where first it is to be observed that the Lord did not say, “He that shall commit a least sin shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”; nor again did he say, “He that shall break one of these least commandments shall be called least,” etc.; but: He… that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Where the Lord excludes from the kingdom not those who in whatever way break the commandments of the divine law, but those who break them by a depraved interpretation destroying them — which the Scribes and Pharisees were doing, who so preached the love of friends as to command that enemies be hated, and so condemned adultery as to deny that lust conceived in the heart alone was forbidden. Hence the Lord cried: I have not come to break the law (the moral, namely) — that is, to abrogate and take it away — but to fulfill it, that is, to explain it perfectly, and to supply the faithful with strength for keeping it. And so, in this manner, to break one of the least commandments is not a least and venial sin, but a huge and deadly crime, since it is to deprave and corrupt the word of God. And in this way St. Jerome understands this place in the commentary, where he says the Scribes and Pharisees are lashed by the Lord for corrupting the divine commandments by wrongly expounding them. St. Augustine also, in book 1 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chapter 16, writes that that “he that shall break, and shall so teach men,” is to be taken so that the sense is: he that shall break, and shall teach so — that is, according to what he breaks, not according to what he finds and reads. Then, if one contend that in this place there are excluded from the kingdom of heaven not only he who perversely teaches, but also he who does not observe the least commandments, even though perchance he teach rightly, we can apply another solution. For by the least commandments can rightly be understood the commandments of the old law — Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, etc. — of which he had said a little before: I have not come to break the law, but to fulfill it. And in this way St. Augustine understands this place, in book 1 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chapter 8 [al. 18], and St. Anselm in the commentary. For those are called least, not because they commit a least or light sin who transgress them, but because they perfect a man less than those which Christ, by explaining and perfecting, delivered: for he is less perfect who only does not commit adultery than he who also does not look to lust; and he is less perfect who only does not kill than he who also says no contumelious word. Finally, if one will altogether have the least commandments understood as the commandments which Christ added above the justice of the Scribes and Pharisees, as Chrysostom and Theophylact expound, then we shall bring a third solution. For we shall say the commandments called least are: Not to covet another's wife; Not to put away one's own, save for fornication; Not to marry another while the former lives; Not to say to one's neighbor, Thou fool; Not to hate enemies — and the like, which are true and proper commandments, and which cannot be violated without crime. For, as Chrysostom and Theophylact teach, Christ called them least commandments not because they are in very truth light and small, but that he might speak modestly of his own things, and teach us humility even in this doctrine — or also because it is a lesser sin to violate these than the former: for it is a lesser evil to lust than in fact to commit adultery, and to say “thou fool” than to kill. Wherefore, as not to kill and not to commit adultery are least as to perfection, as St. Augustine and St. Anselm said, and contrariwise are greatest as to the guilt which they induce if they be violated, so also not to lust and not to revile are least as to guilt, and contrariwise greatest as to perfection. But thou wilt object: among Christ's commandments are found not only Not to revile, but also Not to be angry, and Not to say Raca — which they who observe not sin venially; and yet, according to the Lord's sentence, he who shall break those least commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. I answer: those are not properly and of themselves commandments, but degrees of the same commandment. For the Lord, wishing to explain perfectly that commandment of the law, Thou shalt not kill, which by the Scribes and Pharisees was wrongly expounded, taught that it is sin to wound one's neighbor not only in deed, but also in words and in thought; and at the same time he explained the difference of these degrees when he said: He that is angry shall be in danger of the judgment; he that shall say Raca shall be in danger of the council; he that shall say Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire. And so he taught that the commandment about not killing is most perfectly observed by him who is not even angry with his neighbor without cause; but if one be lightly angry, so that he burst not forth into a word of indignation, or at least not into open reviling, that he now departs from the perfect observance of the law, yet is reckoned a transgressor in a certain respect, not simply, and therefore is guilty not of hell fire, but of a far milder punishment; but if one cast manifest reviling at his neighbor — which certainly cannot proceed from a friendly breast — then at last he has fallen not from the perfect observance, but simply from the observance, of the law, and so has become guilty of hell fire; and if he is simply guilty of the violated law who wounds with a word, much more is he guilty who visits his brother with blows or with death. And these things on the first objection.
Other objections are taken from other testimonies of sacred Scripture, which seem to fight against what we taught above not so directly, but as it were obliquely. The second objection, then, which John Calvin brings forward, is that of Matthew 22: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, etc. From which place he frames an argument of this kind, in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 12: “I ask,” says he, “whether there is any sin at all, however light, which is not repugnant to the observance of the law? For what vicious thought will creep into a man's mind, if it be occupied with the love of the whole of God? And the law is not satisfied except when God is loved with the whole heart.” I answer: the love of God with the whole heart can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that “with the whole heart” is the same as “above all other things, wholly and perfectly, so that nothing is set before or equaled to the love of God.” In the other way, so that God is always actually thought of and loved, and the love of God so holds the mind occupied that nothing can creep in which is (I say not against, but) beside the charity of God or of neighbor. In the former way we confess that it is commanded us to love God with the whole heart; but with this love we deny that venial sins fight; and thereby we contend it is false that any light sin whatever is repugnant to the observance of the law. In the latter way we confess that no vicious thought can creep upon him who is wholly occupied in the love of God; but we assert that that love, which is proper to the blessed, is not properly commanded us in this life, but only indicated — that we may know, namely, whither we ought to direct our hope and desires. And that these things are so we have already demonstrated in the book On Monks, chapters 2 and 13. But in this place this one argument will suffice us: that Scripture witnesses that David followed God with his whole heart, 3 Kings 14, and likewise Josias, 4 Kings 23; and of Zachary and Elizabeth Luke writes, chapter 1, that they walked in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord — and they would not be said to have walked in all the commandments who had neglected the first and greatest, which is of loving God with the whole heart. And what the Scriptures witness of David, Josias, Zachary, Elizabeth cannot be doubted to be capable of being said also of Abraham, of Moses, of Elias, of John the Baptist, of the Apostles Peter, Paul, John, James, and the rest; and yet we know that John said: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 1 John 1, and James likewise: In many things we all offend, James 3. Wherefore those light sins which were in those who loved God with the whole heart are not repugnant to the observance of the law commanding love with the whole heart.
The third objection is taken from that of John 13: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. For St. Augustine, in the commentary on this place, interprets by the washing of the feet the purgation from venial sins; whose exposition St. Bernard also follows, in the sermon on the Lord's Supper. But if venial sins exclude from the part of the Lord — that is, from the heavenly kingdom — assuredly they are to be called by their nature not venial, but mortal. Add that St. Basil, book 1 On Baptism, chapter 2, says that James therefore said, Whosoever offend in one point is become guilty of all, because he had heard from the Lord: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me; from which we understand that that saying — whosoever offend in one is become guilty of all — pertains also to venial sins. I answer: that saying (if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me) can be expounded in two ways. In one way, to the letter, of the material washing of the feet — so that, namely, the disobedience of the Apostle Peter is noted, who would not obey the Lord in this, that he should suffer his feet to be washed; and in this way St. Basil took this threatening of the Lord; and he rightly said that not to obey the Lord is such a sin that he who offends in that one thing becomes guilty of all the precepts — for it would have been not a venial but a mortal sin, if the Apostle Peter, the Lord's will being clearly seen, had resolved obstinately to resist altogether. In the other way, of the spiritual washing from venial sins, as St. Augustine and St. Bernard took this place — above all on account of those words: He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet; by which words it is signified that just men are indeed washed, and yet need in this life a purgation from venial sins, as from the filth of the feet contracted from human converse. And although it cannot be that one enter with such filth into the kingdom of heaven — into which nothing defiled shall enter, Apocalypse 21 — and therefore it was rightly said, if I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me: yet such sins do not simply exclude from the kingdom, but only for a time — until, namely, they have been purged; and because by their nature they deserve not eternal punishment, but temporal, therefore by their nature they do not exclude from the kingdom, save for that time which they demand for their own purgation.
The fourth objection is taken from that of Matthew 10: whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water… he shall not lose his reward. For some reason thus: the least good works merit eternal life, as is clear from the testimony brought; therefore the least sins also merit everlasting torment. I answer: this argument sins in many ways. For first, the Lord does not say of him who shall give a cup of cold water, “he shall possess eternal life,” but, “he shall not lose his reward.” Wherefore from that testimony it ought not to be made out that the least sins merit eternal death, but that they will not lose their punishment — which indeed we gladly concede; but it does not straightway follow that that punishment will be everlasting. Then, even if the Lord had in express words promised the kingdom of heaven to those who should give a cup of cold water, it would nevertheless not follow that to the least sin the punishment of gehenna is owed: for to give to a least work the greatest reward would be immense liberality and mercy; but to give to a least sin the greatest punishment would be injustice and cruelty. Finally, to give a cup of cold water out of the charity of God is not a least work, but a very great one, and truly meritorious of eternal life; and to this good work is to be opposed not venial sin, which stands together with charity, but mortal, which is repugnant to charity; and any sin whatever repugnant to charity, even if otherwise it seem least, will be not least, but great, and truly meritorious of eternal death. Certain other objections could be proposed from those testimonies of Scripture which seem to teach that the souls in purgatory are not certain of salvation — whence it is deduced that the venial sins which perchance cleave to them when they depart from this life merit everlasting death. But these were solved in book 2 On Purgatory, chapter 5.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Diluuntur objectiones ex Scripturis. Restat nunc, ut objectiones, quae contra ea quae diximus, fieri solent, breviter dilua¬ mus. Prima objectio sumitur ex Scripturis, quae generatim de omni peccato ita pronuntiant : Maledictus omnis, qui non permanserit in om¬ nibus, qux scripta sunt in libro legis hujus, Deuteron. xxvn ; Anima, qux peccaverit, ipsa morietur, Ezechiel. xvm ; Stipendium pecca¬ ti mors, Roman. vi ; Qui offenderit in uno fa¬ ctus est omnium reus , Jacobi ii ; Qui solverit unumdemandatis istis minimis, minimus vocabi¬ tur in regno coelorum, Matth. v (G). Haecdicun. tur de peccatis universe ; igitur omnia peccata reum faciunt maledictionis divinae, et mortis aeternae, et a regno coelorum excludunt. Qua¬ re sunt omnia ex se mortalia, ct si quae ve¬ nialia sunt, id non habent ex natura sua, sed ex misericordia Dei, (1) Jacob. II, 10. — (2) Luc. I, 6. — (3) I Joan, I, 8. — (4) Jacob. III, 2, 3. — (5) Rom. XIII, 8. — G) Deut. XXVII, 26; Ezech XVIII, 20; Rom. VI, 23; Jacob. II, 10; Matth, V, 19. 238 LIBER I. Ac ne forte quis dicat, peccata venialia non esse simpliciter et absolute peccata, Scri¬ pturas autem allegatas de veris perfectisque peccatis esse accipiendas, probari potest ex apostolo Joan. peccata venialia simpliciter et absolute peccata, et iniquitates in divinis litteris nominari. De venialibus enim loquitur in epist. i. cap. 1. cum ait: «Si dixerimus, quia pecca¬ tum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est : si autem confitea¬ mur peccata nostra, fidelis est et justus, ut remittat nobis peccata nostra, et emundet nos ab omni iniquitate. » Apostolus quoque Jacobus cap. iii. sum epistolae peccata ve¬ nialia offensiones appellat, cum ait : in mul¬ tis offendimus omnes , et ipse idem cap. ir. de offensionibus generat m ait : Qui offenderit in uno , factus est omnium reus. Denique si minima mandata violari non possunt sine amissione regni coelestis (mini¬ mum enim vocari in regno coelorum) nulla peccata tam parva erunt, quae non possint hominem damnare, si a Deo absque miseri¬ cordia judicemur. Respondeo : Quamvis peccata venialia, si cum mortalibus conferantur, non sint per¬ fecte peccata, ut in extremo capite superiore docuimus, absolute tamen peccata nominari possunt, ut in sacris litteris nominantur. Nam, juxta communionem philosophorum doctrinam, ens non univoce dicitur de Deo et rebus creatis ; neque de substantia et ac¬ cidente, et sunt res omnes creatse, res im¬ perfectae, cum creatores collatce ; et acci¬ dentia, entia sunt imperfecta, si cum sub¬ stantia conferantur : nomen tamen entis non solum Deo, sed etiam rebus creatis, et ipsis quoque accidentibus, absolute communi¬ catur. Itaque non negamus peccata venia¬ lia, absolute peccata, et iniquitates, atque offensiones dici posse, et re ipsa his nomini¬ bus in divinis litteris appellari, sed dicimus vocabula ista non univoce peccatis morta¬ libus et venialibus convenire, et idcirco non esse ex solis his vocibus de rebus ipsis pro¬ nuntiandum, sed oportere ex adjunctis, an¬ tecedentibus, et sequentibus judicare, ubi Scripturee divinae de peccatis mortalibus, et ubi de venialibus loquantur. Porro in locis in argumento allatis, non de peccatis in universum, sed de solis mortali¬ bus agi facile probare possumus. Primum, quia si Scripturas illae peccata venialia com¬ prehenderent, sequeretur homines justos ob sola peccata venialia non solum excidere posse a vita gratiae sed etiam re ipsa exci¬ dere ; non enim Scripturas illas dicunt, ani¬ mam quae peccaverit, posse mori, si Deus imputare velit peccatum, sed plane mori : neque dicunt, eum qui non permanserit in praeceptis Domini, posse maledici, si Deus voluerit, sed jam esse maledictum : et sti¬ pendium peccati non dicunt, posse esse mor¬ tem, sed re ipsa esse : neque ait S. Jacobus, eum qui offendit in uno, posse fieri omnium reum,sedfactum esse omnium reum. Et deni¬ que in Evangelio Dominus non ait : Qui solverit unum de mandatis istis minimis, et docuerit sic homines, minimus vocari poterit in regno coelorum, sed absolute pronuntiat minimum, id est nullum, eum esse vocandum in regno coelorum. At ne ipsi quidem adversarii con¬ cedunt, ob sola peccata venialia hominem justum excidere a vita gratiae ; vel maledici a Domino ; vel fieri totius divinae legis vio¬ latae reum; vel excludi continuo ad haeredi- tate regni coelestis : igitur loca illa non de venialibus delictis, sed de criminibus tan¬ tum accipienda sunt. Deinde hoc idem ostenditur ex adjunctis, praecedentibus, vel sequentibus. Siquidem maledictio illa Deuteronomii refertur ad vio¬ latores mandatorum, quae in eo ipso loco tradita fuerant. Id enim significat illud pro¬ nomen, hujus, cum dicitur : Maledictus qui non permanserit in omnibus , quae scripta sunt in libro legis hujus (1). Ea vero mandata sunt omnia longe gravissima de cavenda idololatria, incestu, homicidio, et similibus, quae consensu omnium crimina sunt, ac pec¬ cata lethalia. Pari ratione Ezechiel ubi ait : Anima quae peccaverit , ipsa morietur (2), enumerat varia scelera, quae sunt omnia genere suo morta¬ lia, et quidem ex gravioribus, et ideo abomi¬ nationes, et res detestandas, atque impieta¬ tes ea nominat. De ejusmodi autem peccatis rectissime dicitur : Anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. Jam vero B. Paulus in toto vi. cap. epist. ad Romanos, de peccato illo disserit, quod pugnat cum gratia, et simul cum justitia manere non potest; et quod qui habet, mor¬ tuus est, qui non habet, vivus : qualia sunt non omnia peccata, sed solum lethalia, vc- (1) Deut. XXVII, 26. — (2) Ezecb. XVIII, 20. CAPUT XII. 239 nialibus enim gratiam, justitiam, et vitam non excludi, et Catholici et Lutherani ad¬ mittunt. De his igitur peccatis in extremo capite concludit : Stipendium peccati mors , gi'atia autem Dei vita xterna (1). S. Jacobus in epistola sua cap. ii. cum ait : Qui offenderit in uno , factus est omnium reus (2), explicat satis aperte de criminibus se loqui, quaj proprie et perfecte sunt contra legem. Sic enim subjungit continuo : Qui enim dixit : Non mxchaberis, dixit, et Non occides. Quod si non mxchaberis, occides au¬ tem, factus es transgressor legis. Cur autem dixerit, reum esse omnium mandatorum, qui unum transgressus fuerit, etiamsi ceete- ra observasse videatur, causam reddit S. Augustinus in epist. 29 ad S. Hieronymum, quem sequitur Beda in commentario hujus loci, etQEcumenius, quia videlicet omnia mandata ad unum revocantur , quod est mandatum dilectionis, ut Apostolus docet Rom. xiii ; hinc enim sequitur, ut qui unum aliquod preeceptum violat , consequenter charitatem violet ; qui autem charitatem violat, totam legem quodammodo violat : efficitur enim ita simpliciter transgressor le¬ gis, et reus mortis aeternae, ac si nullum unquam praeceptum servasset. Et quemadmodum, ut pulchre docet au¬ ctor operis imperfecti in Matthaeum homil 35. in ii. tom. S. Joannis Chrysostomi, ei qui unam solum corporis partem non armatam reliquit, et inde vulnus accepit et periit, ni¬ hil prodest, quod reliqua membra magno labore munierit, ita nihil prodest ad mortem aeternam evadendam omnia praecepta ser¬ vare, si quis offendat, ac labatur in uno, cum omnia sint in charitate connexa, et qui charitatem violat, amicus Dei esse non pos¬ sit. Ex his autem perspicuum est B. Jacobum per offensionem in uno hoc loco non intel- ligere quamlibet offensionem, sed eam tan¬ tum, quae charitatem excludat, qualis certe non est offensio, quam venialem dicimus, quippe quae in hominibus justis, et charitate flagrantibus reperitur. Neque enim sine charitate erat discipulus ille, quem diligebat Jesus, cum de se et caeteris diceret : Si di¬ xerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus etc. (3). Quare S. Jacobus longe aliter accipit offensionem, cum dicit cap. ii : Qui offendit in uno , factus est omni¬ um i'eus. Et cum postea cap. m. dicit : In multis offendimus (4). Ibi enim de offensio¬ ne criminali, hic de veniali locutus est ; et ideo ibi de eo qui offendit in uno, subjun¬ xit, factus est omnium j'eus; hic autem addi¬ dit : Qui autem non offendit in verbo, hic per¬ fectus est vir; ubi de ea offensione loqui se declaravit, quae perfectioni, non de ea, quae necessariae integritati opponitur. Restat ultimus locus ex Evangelio Matth. cap. v. quem locum praeter caeteros urget Calvinus, in Antidoto Concilii Tridentini sess. 6. cap. 12. Ubi primum observandum est, non dixisse Dominum : Qui fecerit pec¬ catum minimum, minimus vocabitur in reg¬ no coelorum : neque etiam dixisse : Qui solverit unum ex his mandatis minimis, mi¬ nimus vocabitur etc. Sed : Qui solverit unum de his mandatis minimis, et docuerit sic homi¬ nes , minimus vocabitur in regno coelorum (5). Ubi Dominus excludit a regno noc eos, qui quomodocumque solvunt mandata legis di¬ vinae , sed qui solvunt prava interpreta¬ tione illa destruente^, quod Scribae, et Pha- risaei faciebant, qui sic praedicabant dile¬ ctionem amicorum, ut inimicos odio haberi praeciperent ; et sic adulterium damnabant, ut concupiscentiam solo corde conceptam prohibitam esse negarent. Hinc enim Domi¬ nus clamabat : Non veni legem (moralem vi¬ delicet) solvere, id est, abrogare, ac tollere, sed adimplere , id est, perfecte explicrae, et vites ad eam servandum fidelibus suppe¬ ditare. Itaque hoc modo unum ex minimis mandatis solvere, non est peccatum mini¬ mum ac veniale, sed ingens ac lethale cri¬ men, cum sit depravare ac corrumpere ver¬ bum Dei. Et hoc modo intelligit hunc locum S. Hie¬ ronymus in commentar, ubi dicit, a Domino sugillari scribas, et pharisseos, qui mandata divina perperam exponendo, corrumpebant. S. etiam Augustinus in lib. i. de serm. Do¬ mini in monte cap. 16. scribit, illud : « Qui solverit et docuerit sic homines, » ita esse accipiendum, ut sensus sit : « Qui solverit, et docuerit sic, id est, secundum id quod solvit, non secundum id, quod invenit, et legit. » Deinde si quis contendat, excludi hoc loco a regno coelorum non solum qui perverse docet, sed etiam qui non observat mandata minima, etiamsi forte recte doceat, possu- (1) Rom. VI, 23. — (2) Jac. II, 10. - (3)Joan. I, 8. - (4) Jac.II,10; ibid. 111,2 _ (5);Matth.V, 19. 240 LIBER I. mus aliam adhibere solutionem. Nam per mandata minima recte possunt intelligi man¬ data legis veteris : Non occides , non mcechabe- ris etc. de quibus paulo ante dixerat : Non veni legem solvere,. sed implere. Et hoc modo hunc locum intelligit S. Augustinus inlib. I. de serm. Domini in monte cap. 18. et S. An- selmus in comment. dicuntur enim illa mi¬ nima, non quia peccatum minimum aut leve committant, qui ea praevaricantur ; sed quia minus perficiant hominem, quam ea, quae Christus explicando et perficiendo tradidit. Minus enim perfectus est qui tantum non moechatur, quam qui etiam non videt ad concupiscendum : et minus perfectus est qui tantum occidit, quam qui etiam nullum verbum cotumeliosum dicit. Denique si quis omnino velit per mandata minima intelligi mandata, quae Christus ad¬ jecit supra justitiam Scribarum et Pbarisaeo- rum, ut exponunt Chrysostomus et Theo- phylactus : tum solutionem tertiam affere¬ mus. Dicemus enim mandata minima vocari, Non concupiscere mulfferem alienam ; Non dimittere propriam, nisi ob fornicationem; Non aliam ducere priore vivente; Non dicere proximo fatue ; Non odisse inimicos, et simi¬ lia , quae vera et propria mandata sunt, quae- que sine crimine violari non possunt. Nam, ut docent Chrysostomus et Theophylactus, non vocavit ea Christus minima mandata, quia re vera sint levia, et exigua, sed ut modeste de rebus suis loqueretur, et nos doceret etiam in hac doctrina humilitatem, vel etiam quia minus peccatum est haec vio¬ lare, quam superiora. Minus enim malum est concupiscere, quam re ipsa moechari ; et dicere fatue quam occidere. Quocirca sicut non occidere, et non moechari sunt minima, quoad perfectionem, ut dicebat S, Augusti¬ nus et S. Anselmus, et c contrario sunt ma¬ xima, quoad reatum, quem inducunt , si violentur, sic etiam non concupiscere," et non conviciari sunt minima quoad i'eatuin, et e contrario sunt maxima quoad perfectio¬ nem. Sed objicies, inter Christi mandata non solum inveniri Non conviciari, sed etiam Non irasci, et Non dicere raca , quse qui non observent, peccant venialiter, et tamen juxta Domini sententiam, qui mandata illa minima solverit, minimus vocabitur in regno coelo¬ rum. Respondeo, illa non esse proprie et per se mandata, sed gradus ejusdem mandati. Do¬ minus enim explicare volens perfecte man¬ datum illud legis : Non occides, quod a scri¬ bis et pharisacis perperam exponebatur : docuit non solum re ipsa, sed etiam verbis, et cogitatione proximum 1 cedere, peccatum esse ; et simul explicuit discrimen horum graduum cum ait : Qui irascitur, reus erit judicio ; Qui dixerit raca, reus erit concili o ; Qui dixerit fatue, reus erit gehenna. ? ignis. Ita¬ que docuit, mandatum de non occidendo, perfectissime observari ab eo, qui ne irasci¬ tur quidem proximo sine causa ; si vero quis leviter irascitur , ita ut non prorumpat in vocem indignationis, aut certe non in aper¬ tum convicium, eum jam recedere a perfecta observatione legis, sed tamen censeri secun¬ dum quid non autem simpliciter praevarica- torem, et ideo non esse reum gehennae ig¬ nis, sed poenae longe mitioris. Si quis autem manifestum convicium in proximum jaciat, quod certe ex amico pectore progredi nequit, tum demum non a perfecta observatione, sed simpliciter ab observatione legis eum cecidisse, atque adeo reum gehennae ignis factum esse, etsi reus est simpliciter violatae legis, qui verbo laedit, multo magis reum esse, qui verberibus, aut morte fratrem suum afficit. Atque haec de prima objectio¬ ne. Aliae objectiones sumuntur ex aliis Scri¬ pturae sacrae testimoniis, quae non ita dire¬ cte, sed quasi ex obliquo pugnare videntur contra ea, quae nos supra docuimus. Est igitur secunda objectio, quam Joan- nes Calvinus producit in medium, illud Matth. xxn : Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde, etc. (I). Ex quo loco ejusmodi argumentum conficit in Antidoto Concilii Trident. sess. 6. cap 42 : « Quaero, inquit, an ullum sit omnino quamlibet leve pecca¬ tum, quod non legis observantiae repugnet ? Quae enim vitiosa cogitatio obrepet in homi¬ nis animum, si totius Dei amore occupetur? non autem satisfit legi, nisi cum diligitur Deus ex toto corde. » Respondeo : Dilectio Dei ex toto corde duobus modis intelligi potest : uno modo ut idem sit ex toto corde, quod super omnia alia integre, ac perfecte, ut nihil Dei amori an¬ teponatur, vel adaequetur ; altero modo, ut seinpcr actu Deus cogitetur, et diligatur, (1) Matth. XXII, 37. CAPUT XII. 241 ct sic animum Dei amor occupatum teneat, ut nihil obrepere possit, quod sit (non in¬ quam) contra, sed praeter Dei, vel proximi charitatem. Priore modo fatemur imperari nobis, ut Deum ex toto corde diligamus, sed cum hac dilectione negamus pugnare pec¬ cata venialia. Ac per hoc falsum esse con¬ tendimus repugnare observantiae legis quam¬ libet leve peccatum. Posteriore modo fate¬ mur, nullam vitiosam cogitationem obrepere posse ei, qui totus in Dei amore oceupetur, sed eam dilectionem, quse^propria est bea¬ torum, nobis in hac vita non proprie impe¬ rari, sed tantum indicari asserimus, ut nimi¬ rum sciamus, quo spem ac desideria dirigere debeamus. Haec autem ita se habere in libro de Mo¬ nachis, cap. 2. et 13. jam antea demonstra¬ vimus. Sed hoc loco nobis illud unum argu¬ mentum sufficiet, quod Scriptura testetur Davidem in toto corde suo secutum esse Deum, Regum xiv, et similiter Josiam, IV. Reg. xxm, et de Zacharia et Elisabeth scribat Lucas, cap. i, ambulasse eos in omnibus mandatis, et justificationibus Domini, neque enim dicerentur ambulasse in omnibus man¬ datis, qui primum et maximum, quod est de diligendo Deo ex toto corde neglexissent. Quod autem de Davide, Josia, Zacharia, Elisabeth Scripturse testantur, ambigi non potest, quin etiam dici possit de Abrahamo, de Mose, de Elia, de Joanne Baptista, de Apostolis Petro, Paulo, Joanne, Jacobo, et eseteris, et tamen Joannem dixisse scimus : St dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus , nos ipsos seducimus , I. Joan. i, et Jacobum simi¬ liter : In multis offendimus omnes , Jacob. iii (1). Quare non repugnant observantiae legis imperantis dilectionem ex toto corde, levia illa peccata, quae in illis fuerunt, qui Deum ex toto corde dilexerunt. Tertia objectio sumitur ex illo Joan. xm : Si non lavero te, non habebis partem me- cum (2). Nam S. Augustinus in commentario hujus loci interpretatur per lotionem pedum, purgationem a peccatis venialibus cujus ex¬ positionem sequitur etiam S. Bernar. in ser¬ mone de coena Domini. Quod si peccata ve¬ nialia excludunt a parte Domini, id est, a regno coelesti, profecto natura sua non ve¬ nialia, sed mortalia dicenda sunt. Adde quod S. Basilius lib. i. de Baptismo, cap. 2, dicit. Jacobum ideo dixisse : Qui offendit in uno factus est omnium reus, quia audierat a Do¬ mino : Si non lavero te non habebis partem mecum. Ex quo intelligimus, ad venialia peccata etiam pertinere illud : Qui offendit in uno, factus est omnium reus . Respondeo : illud ( sinon lavero te, non ha¬ bebis partem mecum ) duobus modis exponi potest. Uno modo ad litteram de materiali pedum lotione, ut videlicet notetur inobe- dientia apostoli Petri, qui Domino parere nolebat in eo, ut sineret sibi pedes lavari ; ct hoc modo accepit S. Basilius hanc Do¬ mini comminationem ; et recte dixit, tale peccatum esse non obedire Domino, ut qui in ea una re offendat, fiat omnium praece¬ ptorum reus, non enim veniale, sed mortale peccatum fuisset, Si Apostolus Petrus per¬ specta Domini voluntate obstinate resistere omnino decrevisset. Altero modo de spirituali lotione a pec¬ catis venialibus, quomodo acceperunt hunc locum S. Augustinus et S. Bernardus, prae¬ sertim propter illa verba : Qui lotus est, non indiget, nisi ut pedes lavet ; quibus verbis sig¬ nificatur homines justos esse quidem lotos, et tamen egere in hac vita purgatione a peccatis venialibus quasi sordibus pedum ex humana conversatione contractis. Quam¬ vis autem fieri non possit, ut quis cum ejus¬ modi sordibus in regnum coelorum ingre¬ diatur, quo nihil coinquinatum intrabit, Apocal. xxi, et ideo recte dictum sit : si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum ; tamen non simpliciter ejusmodi peccata excludunt a regno, sed solum ad tempus, donec videli¬ cet purgata non fuerint ; et quia non meren¬ tur ex natura sua poenam seternam, sed tem¬ poralem, ideo ex natura sua non excludunt a regno, nisi pro tempore illo, quod ad sui purgationem exigunt. Quarta objectio sumitur ex illo Matt. x : Qui¬ cumque dederit uni ex minimis istis calicem aquae frigidae, non perdet mercedemsuam (3). Sic enim quidam ratiocinantur : Minima o- pera bona merentur vitam alternam, ut ex testimonio allato perspicuum est: igitur et mi¬ nima peccata merentur supplicium sempiter¬ num. Respondeo : multis modis argumentum hoc peccat. Primum enim non ait Dominus de eo, qui dederit calicem aquse frigida;, vi¬ tam seternam possidebit, sed non perdet mer- cedem suam. Quare ex eo testimonio effic (1) l Joan. I, 8; Jacob. III, 2. — (2) Joan. XIII, 8. — (3) Matth. X, 42. 252 L1BEH I. non debet, minima peccata mereri mortem aeternam, sed non perditura esse pamara suam, quod quidem libenter concedimus, sed non continuo poena illa erit sempi¬ terna. Deinde etiamsi Dominus disertis verbis promisisset regnum coelorum iis, qui darent calicem aqua? frigidae, non tamen conse¬ quens esset, ut minimo peccato deberetur poena gehennae. Dare enim minimo operi maximum praemium, ingens liberalitas et misericordia esset. Dare autem minimo pec¬ cato maximam poenam, injustitia et crudeli¬ tas esset. Denique dare calicem aquae frigidae ex charitate Dei, non est minimum opus, sed valde magnum, et vere meritorium vitae aeternae; huic autem operi bono non est op¬ ponendum peccatum veniale, quod simul cum charitate consistit, sed mortale, quod charitati repugnat. Quodlibet autem pecca¬ tum charitati repugnans, etiamsi alioqui mi¬ nimum videatur non minimum, sed magnum erit, et vere mortis aeternae miritorium. Aliae quaedam objectiones proponi possent ex illis Scripturae testimoniis, quae docere videntur, animas et purgatorio non esse certas de salute : ex quo.deducitur, peccata venialia, quae in illis forte haerent, cum de hac vita discedunt, mortem sempiternam promereri. Sed eae solutae sunt in 2. lib. de Purgatorio cap. 5.