Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 2: The errors concerning the first question are related: whether there is any sin of origin
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book IV. 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).
As to what pertains to the first question, in which it is asked whether there is any sin of origin — that is, one which is drawn through generation from parents: Pelagius first began to devise the new dogma, as St. Augustine testifies in the book On Original Sin, from the beginning down to chapter 16, and in book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 2 and following, and in the book On Heresies, chapter 88, where he writes that the dogma of Pelagius and of his disciple Caelestius was that the sin of Adam harmed himself alone, not his posterity; and that all who draw their origin from Adam die naturally — for Adam also would have died, though he had not sinned. And so he would have it that men are now born without virtue and without vice, and that such was Adam before the fall.
It is worth while to observe with what craftiness Pelagius deceived the Palestinian Synod, before which he had been accused on the ground of this new heresy. For (as St. Augustine relates in the book On Original Sin, chapter 15) Pelagius in that Synod anathematized those who should say that the sin of the first man did not harm his posterity, and that infants are now born such as Adam was before the fall. But afterwards he answered his disciples that he had condemned those objected points for this reason: that the sin of the first man harmed his posterity not by propagation, but by example — for all imitated him who afterwards sinned; and that infants are not born such as Adam was before the fall, because infants lack the use of free choice and are not capable of a precept, whereas Adam before the fall both had the use of free choice and was capable of a precept. Such, namely, are the arts of heretics.
There is another error of the Pelagians, who, convicted (as appears) by the arguments of the Catholics, began to teach that the first man would not have died had he not sinned, and that, made mortal after sin, he begot mortal sons — that the death of the body is drawn from Adam through generation, yet not sin, which is the death of the soul. So relates St. Augustine, in book 4 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapters 2 and 4.
Each error, both that former one of Pelagius and this latter one of the Pelagians, has found patrons in this our age. The former error, which contends that neither sin nor death is drawn from Adam, is maintained at this time by the Anabaptists, as can be known from the arguments which we refuted in the book On Baptism, chapter 9. For arguments 30, 32, and 33 were drawn thence to prove that infants are not to be baptized, since they lack original sin. The same Peter Martyr testifies, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans, where he says that they not only deny original sin, but also so refer death and the afflictions of this life to natural causes that they will in no way have them derived from the sin of the first man. Against which opinion, as to the death of the body, we discoursed in the book On the State of Innocence. Of the same opinion seem to have been the Albigenses, St. Antoninus being witness, in the Summa of Theology, part 4, title 11, chapter 7, §5; and before the Albigenses, Peter Abelard. For he (as St. Bernard writes, in the hundred and eighty-eighth epistle) did not think rightly of the sin of origin. And what his error was, the same Bernard insinuates in epistle 190, where, after he had said that Abelard taught that Christ came into the world, and suffered and died, only that he might teach and instruct us by word and example, he gathers thence that, by the opinion of Abelard, Adam harmed us only by example, and that infants, who are not capable of instruction and examples, neither perished in Adam nor are saved through Christ.
The latter error, which concedes that the death of the body and other diseases and evils are drawn from Adam, yet not sin, which is the death of the soul, has been renewed in this age by Huldrych Zwingli, Jacques Lefèvre, and Desiderius Erasmus. And concerning Jacques Lefèvre indeed there is no ambiguity; for openly enough, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans and in the Apology for his commentaries, he teaches that we draw nothing from Adam except the obligation to death.
Erasmus has striven to clear himself of the suspicion of this error, yet he does not seem plainly cleared. For when, in the annotations on chapter 5 to the Romans, he had written that all sinned in Adam by imitation, and had in this way expounded that phrase, in whom all have sinned, and then had seen that on account of that explication he had fallen under suspicion of the Pelagian heresy, in another edition he denied that he was a Pelagian, and testified in express words that he acknowledges the sin of origin. But in so long a disputation he never says anything from which it could be understood that he believed the sin of origin to be drawn not by imitation, but by generation. Yet this he ought to have said, if he truly desired to be cleared, since this was what was chiefly objected to him. Nay more: he not only does not say that the sin of origin is derived to us by generation, not by imitation, but says many things by which he indicates that he thinks the contrary. First, the words of blessed Paul — than which none are more open for original sin — he altogether contends are not to be understood of the true propagation of sin, as all Catholics understand them, but of imitation, as the Pelagians would have it. Next, he commends the author of the brief commentaries on all the epistles of Paul, which are falsely attributed to St. Jerome, as a very learned man. But that author expounds those words — in whom all have sinned — of imitation. Yet that the author of those commentaries was Pelagius, or some Pelagian, is beyond controversy. For that Pelagius wrote brief commentaries on the epistles of Paul, Augustine is witness, book 3 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapters 1, 3, and 12; and although a certain argumentation which Augustine says he read in them is not now extant in those commentaries, it is not therefore certain that those commentaries are not of Pelagius — since it can be that that argumentation was removed by those who wished to sell that book under the name of St. Jerome. But whatever be of this, that is certain: by the judgment of all the learned, that author is, if not Pelagius, certainly a Pelagian. Moreover, Erasmus strives to make St. John Chrysostom a Pelagian, that he may, namely, acquire a distinguished patron for the Pelagian heresy — whom nevertheless St. Augustine, book 1 [al. 2] against Julian, chapter 2 [al. 6], diligently clears, and sharply reprehends Julian, who was endeavoring to brand the same Chrysostom with the same mark. Moreover, because Erasmus saw that he was much pressed by the authority of St. Augustine, who with all his strength assailed the Pelagian heresy, he therefore enumerates the errors of the same St. Augustine — or what he himself supposed errors — that he may diminish and extenuate his authority as much as he can; nor does he blush to write that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, in their disputations against heretics, do not interpret the Scriptures sincerely, but twist them for victory. Finally, he diligently admonishes that we must take care not to hate the Pelagians too much. I add that in the Encomium of Matrimony he openly testifies that he does not hearken to those who say that foul lust proceeded not from nature, but from sin. All which things it is a wonder if they do not signify that Erasmus is a Pelagian, although in word he denies himself to be one.
Let us come to Zwingli. He, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans, writes that the sin of which the Apostle speaks, when he says, in whom all have sinned, is not properly sin, but the effect of sin — that is, a disease and defect. But he teaches this more openly in the book On Baptism, tractate 3, in the digression on original sin, and most openly in the book which is entitled Declaration on Original Sin, to Urbanus Rhegius. But because Henry Bullinger, in sermon 10 of Decade 3, Martin Bucer, in the commentary on chapter 5 of the epistle to the Romans, and Rudolph Gwalther, in the Apology for Zwingli, strive by all means to free him from this mark, and say that Zwingli wished to distinguish original sin from actual sin, and that when he denied original sin to be properly sin he spoke of sin as it signifies a wicked action which is committed by one's own will — therefore I have judged it necessary to explain Zwingli's opinion a little more diligently, and to show from his own words that he cannot be cleared of the error of Pelagius.
First, then, Zwingli confesses that his opinion, in which he says that the sin of origin is a disease, not a sin, is contrary to the common opinion of the Catholic schools. For thus he speaks in the book On Baptism, tractate 3, in the digression on original sin: “A few things must be said by us about original sin; nor am I ignorant how many wagon-loads of revilings are to be expected by us from the rage and roaring of the Pontificals, who will cry out that I am a heretic for this cause also — who neither understand the Scriptures myself, nor expound them to others, but corrupt and tear them with false interpretations. But howsoever they roar, we say that original sin is nothing else than that disease which by hereditary right has been derived into us from Adam, the first parent of us all.” And below: “Whence we gather that original sin is indeed a disease, which yet of itself is not culpable, nor can bring in the punishment of damnation — howsoever here the disputations and opinions of the theologians cry out against us.” Thus he. But the Catholic theologians do not teach that the sin of origin is not distinguished from the actual, nor do they say that it is a wicked action committed by one's own will; and yet they hold that it is truly and properly sin, which makes man not only wretched, but also a sinner and guilty of damnation. Zwingli, then, denied not only that the sin of origin is actual sin, as his defenders and patrons contend, but also that it is truly and properly sin, which makes one a sinner and guilty of death. For this the Catholic Doctors hold, from whom he freely confesses that he dissents. Add that Bucer, in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans, confesses that the Catholic theologians who are called scholastic have handed down the right opinion about the sin of origin; wherefore Bucer fights with himself when he defends Zwingli, who with all his strength assailed the opinion of the scholastics about the sin of origin.
Next, the same Zwingli in express words denies that the original disease is properly sin, and concedes that it can be called sin only by metonymy. “The theologians” (says he, in the book On Baptism, tractate 3) “have been accustomed to call this disease and hereditary contagion of our nature original sin, understanding less rightly the saying of Paul the Apostle which he uses in Romans, chapter 5. For how can it be that what is a disease and contagion should deserve the name of sin, or be sin in very truth?” And in the Declaration on the Sin of Origin, at the beginning: “What,” says he, “could be said more briefly or clearly than that original sin is not sin, but a disease, and that the children of Christians are not, on account of that disease, delivered to eternal punishment? Contrariwise, what could be said more feeble, and more foreign to canonical Scripture, than that this calamity is relieved by the laver of Baptism, and that it is not only a disease, but also a guilt?” And below, when he had said that the sin of origin is not sin, but a disease, he defines a disease, and says that it is a natural defect by which no one can be called either worse or more wicked; and he sets examples — to stammer, to suffer the gout, to be purblind, etc. — and straightway adds: “Thus therefore we have said that the original contagion is a disease, not a sin,” etc. And below: “This,” says he, “I mean: that the original fault is called a fault not truly, but by metonymy, from the deed of the first parent; and that it is nothing else than a condition — a wretched one indeed, but much lighter than the crime had deserved.” And below: “That propensity to sinning from love of self is, then, original sin; which propensity indeed is not properly sin, but a certain fountain and inborn disposition.” We see, then, that Zwingli not only distinguishes the sin of origin from the wicked action which is called actual sin, as the Catholics also distinguish, but openly teaches that original sin is not properly sin, nor induces guilt, and is only sometimes called sin by metonymy, because it is the effect of sin. For, as he himself says in the same place, what the more recent writers call actual sin, that alone is properly sin.
Moreover, the same Zwingli, in the book On Baptism, tractate 3, repeats not once but often that the original disease cannot bring damnation unless it break out into an action contrary to the divine law — which kind of action can be found only in those who have the use of reason. From which we understand that what he several times writes — that original sin condemns all, unless it be cured by the remedy of the blood of Christ — was said on account of adults, who from original sin slide down into actual sins; and that what he adds — that he speaks of the children of the faithful only, when he says that infants are not condemned by the sin of origin — was added to mitigate the odium which he had kindled against himself from this opinion. For the reason by which he proves that original sin cannot condemn is drawn not from the blood of Christ, but from this: that nothing condemns a man except the transgression of the law, and he cannot transgress the law who knows it not — such as infants are. Which reason no less effects that the children of unbelievers cannot be condemned than the children of the faithful.
But let us hear his words: “We gather,” says he, “that original sin is indeed a disease, which yet of itself is not culpable, nor can bring in the punishment of damnation — howsoever here the disputations and opinions of the theologians cry out against us — until the man, corrupted by this contagion, transgresses the law of the Lord; which then at last is wont to happen when he sees and understands the law set for him.” And below: “Paul, in Romans 3, says that the knowledge of sin arises through the law. Where, then, there is no knowledge of the law, there neither can there be knowledge of sin. But where there is no knowledge of sin, there neither is there transgression, and hence neither can there be damnation there. For Paul testifies this same thing, Romans 4, saying: For where there is no law, neither is there transgression. Now therefore consider the force and power of these testimonies, which is so great that it utterly undermines all the inventions of all the theologians about original sin. For this disease cannot bring us damnation; which then at last follows when, having beheld the law set before our eyes, yet impelled by this disease and affection of corrupted nature, we transgress the law. For this reasoning will never deceive, by which we say that there is no transgression at all where there is no knowledge of the law; but where there is no transgression, there neither can there be damnation. Prostrate, then, lies the opinion of the theologians, and it is evident to all that the children of the faithful undergo no damnation on account of that original and hereditary disease, because they are ignorant of the law and of the sentence of the law.” Seest thou how perspicuously Zwingli denies that the sin of origin condemns, and that what he says of the children of the faithful agrees equally with the children of unbelievers? For he does not except the children of the faithful from damnation on account of some pact entered by God with the parents, or on account of the faith of the parents or their own, or on account of some special benefit of Christ; but because they are ignorant of the law and the sentence of the law; and where there is no knowledge of the law, there can be neither transgression nor damnation — which reason exempts the children of unbelievers no less than of the faithful from the peril of damnation.
Wherefore the same Zwingli, in the Declaration on Original Sin, teaches that it is probable that through Christ the universal nature has been restored, so that no infants at all, whether they be children of gentiles or of the faithful, perish; and no adults either, though gentiles, if they show the work of the law written in their hearts. Where what he says of the restoration through Christ seems to be referred to nothing else than to covering the error and turning aside the odium. For the blood of Christ, by the consent of all, both Catholics and Lutherans too, profits not unless it be applied by some instrument — namely, a Sacrament, faith, or whatever else there be. Hence by no reasoning can it be feigned that by the blood of Christ the universal nature has been absolutely and generally freed from original sin; and the reason by which Zwingli proves that the sin of origin cannot condemn infants is founded (as we showed above) not on the benefit of Christ, but on this: that where there is no transgression, there is no damnation; and there is no transgression where there is no knowledge of the law.
Finally, that Zwingli altogether believed that the sin of origin is not only distinguished from actual sin, but truly and properly is not sin, nor makes man guilty, is plain from the same book which is entitled Declaration on Original Sin, past the middle of the book, where he says that infants, so long as they are not capable of the law, are in the state of innocence. For how could he more clearly exempt infants from the state of sin than by asserting that they live in the state of innocence?
But the defenders of Zwingli — Gwalther, Bucer, and Bullinger — object a certain confession of Zwingli, in which he says that he acknowledges the sin of origin, and that through it all perish unless they be redeemed by the blood of Christ. I answer that it is neither a wonder nor a new thing that heretics either fight with themselves or put forth fraudulent confessions — which we taught above that Pelagius also did. And so it is likely that Zwingli, lest he be condemned of heresy by all the Lutherans, agreed with Luther in the words of the confession, and yet understood those same words far otherwise than Luther and the Lutherans supposed; for perhaps he wished to signify that through original sin all perish unless they be redeemed by the blood of Christ, because the propensity to sinning — which with him is original sin — impels all to sin when they begin to have knowledge of the law, as he himself often repeats in the same book.
One thing in this place is not to be passed over: that the opinion of Zwingli is contrary to the Lutherans and to the Catholics in different ways. For Zwingli teaches three things. First, that from the sin of the first man there overflows upon all men a certain disease — that is, a certain propensity to sinning, which by others is wont to be called concupiscence. Second, that this disease is not properly, but metonymically, sin — that is, the effect and cause of sin. Third, that this very disease is original sin, and thereby that original sin is not properly, but only metonymically, sin. Of these three, in the first we all agree; in the second Zwingli agrees with the Catholics and dissents from the Lutherans — for the Catholics (as we shall demonstrate in the disputation on concupiscence) will have concupiscence to be the root or tinder of sins, yet not sin, unless reason itself consent to it; the Lutherans contrariwise contend that concupiscence is true sin, whether reason consent to it or resist. In the third Zwingli agrees with the Lutherans and disagrees from the Catholics. For we (as we shall teach a little after) acknowledge in man propagated from the seed of Adam, besides concupiscence, a privation of justice, and a certain habitual aversion from God himself, and also a certain guilt and stain, which make the man himself truly and properly a sinner, and deliver him to everlasting destruction unless he be redeemed by the blood of Christ. But the Lutherans, as they by no means acknowledge the gift of original justice superadded to nature and habitual, so neither can they acknowledge its privation; and therefore they are compelled to constitute and place the sin of origin in concupiscence itself — which nevertheless they will have to be properly sin. From which it follows that the Lutherans themselves also deny the sin of origin, although they fight sharply for asserting it against Zwingli. For (as we said a little before, and shall prove below in its place) that concupiscence is not sin, except metonymically, as Zwingli teaches. But of these things afterwards.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II. Referuntur errores circa primam quxstionem, quse est, an sit aliquod peccatum originis. Quod attinet ad primam quaestionem, qua qumritur, sitne aliquod peccatum originis, id est, quod per generationem ex parentibus trahatur. Primus Pelagius novum dogma excogitare coepit, ut S. Augustinus testatur in lib. de peccato originali, ab initio usque ad cap. 16. et in lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remissione cap. 2. ct sequentibus, et lib. de ha;res. cap. 88. ubi scribit dogma Pela¬ gii, et discipuli ejus Goelestii fuisse, peccatum Adami soli ipsi nocuisse, non autem posteri¬ tati. Quod autem omnes qui ex Adamo ori¬ ginem trahunt moriantur, fleri naturaliter; nam etiam Adamum fuisse moriturum, quam¬ vis non peccasfcet. Itaque volebat nasci tunc homines sine virtute, et sine vitio, et talem fuisse Adamum ante lapsum. Opera) pretium vero est animadvertere, qua calliditate Pelagius fefellerit Synodum Pa- leslinam, apud quam novae hujus hoeresis causa fuerat accusatus. Nam (ut S. Augusti¬ nus refert in libro de peccato originali c. 15.)- anathematizavit in ea Synodo Pelagius, eos qui dicerent peccatum primi hominis poste¬ ris non nocuisse, et infantes tales nunc nasci, qualis erat Adam ante lapsum. Sed postea discipulis suis respondit, ideo se illa objecta damnasse, quia peccatum primi hominis no¬ cuit posteris non propagatione, sed exemplo, eum enim imitati sunt omnes, qui postea peccaverunt : et infantes non tales nascun¬ tur, qualis fuit Adam ante lapsum, quia ca¬ rent infantes usu liberi arbitrii, ct praecepti capaces non sunt. Adam autem ante lapsum et liberi arbitrii usum habuit, ct praecepti capax fuit. Ilie sunt videlicet artes haeretico¬ rum. Est alius error Pclagianorum, qui convicii (ut apparet) argumentis Catholicorum, pri¬ mum hominem non moriturum, si non pcc- casset, et post peccatum mortalem factum, mortales filios genuisse, docere coeperunt, mortem corporis trahi per generationem ex Adamo, non tamen peccatum, quod est mors anima). Ita refert S. Augustinus in lib. iv. contra duas epistolas Pclagianorum cap. 2. et 4. Uterque error, tam prior ille Pelagii, quam OO Tom. Y. L1BEII IV. 320 hic posterior Pelagianorum patronos reperit hoc nostro steculo. Priorem errorem, qui nec peccatum, nec mortem ex Adamo trahi con¬ tendit, tuentur hoc tempore Anabaptistffi, ut cognosci potest ex argumentis, qua) nos re¬ futavimus in libro de Baptismo cap. 9. Nam argumentum 30. 32. et 33. inde ducebantur ad probandum infantes non esse baptizan¬ dos, quod careant peccato originali. Idem testatur Petrus Martyr in commentar, cap. 3. ad Rom. ubi dicit, eos non tantum negare originale peccatum, sed etiam mortem, et afflictiones hujus vita; ita referre ad causas naturales, ut nullo modo velint ex peccato primi hominis derivari. Adversus quam sen¬ tentiam, quod attinet ad mortem corporis, in lib. de statu Innocentia; disseruimus. Ejusdem sententiae videntur fuisse Albi- genses, teste S. Antonino in Summa theolo¬ gica part. 4. tit. Ii. cap. 7. §.5. et ante Al- bigenses Petrus Abailardus. Is enim (ut scribit S. Bernardus in epistola centesima octuage- sima octava) non recte sensit de peccato ori¬ ginis. Quis autem ejus error fuerit, insinuat idem Bernardus in epist. 190. ubi postea- quam dixerat, Abailardum docuisse, Chri¬ stum non venisse in mundum, nec passum et mortuum esse, nisi ut nos verbo et exemplo doceret ac institueret, inde colligit, ex sen¬ tentia Abailardi, Adamum nobis non no¬ cuisse, nisi exemplo, et infantes, qui institu¬ tionis, et exemplorum capaces non sunt, neque in Adam periisse, neque per Christum salvari. Posteriorem errorem, qui mortem corpo¬ ris, aliosque morbos, et mala ex Adamo trahi concedit, non tamen peccatum, quod est mors anima;, renovarunt hoc sa;culo Huldri- cus, Zwinglius, Jacobus Faber, et Desiderius Erasmus. Ac de Jacobo quidem Fabro nulla, est ambiguitas, satis enim aperte in com¬ mentar. cap. 3. ad Itom. et in Apologia pro suis commentariis docet, nihil nos ex Adam trahere nisi obligationem ad mortem. Erasmus purgare se studuit a suspicione hujus erroris, tamen non videtur plane pur¬ gatus. Nara cum in annot. ad cap. 5. ad Rom. scripsisset in Adamo omnes peccasse imita¬ tione, et hoc modo exposuisset illud : in quo omnes peccaverunt, ac deinde vidisset pro¬ pter eam explicationem se incidisse in su¬ spicionem hiereseos Pelagianae, in alia edi¬ tione negavit se esse Pelagianum, et pecca¬ tum originis agnoscere se disertis verbis testatus est. Cseterum in tam longa disputa¬ tione nunquam dicit aliquid, unde intelligi possit, eum credidisse peccatum originis non imitatione, sed generatione trahi. Hoc autem dicere debuit, si vere purgari cupiebat, cum id esset, quod ei potissimum objiciebatur. Quid? quod non solum non dicit, pecca¬ tum originis generatione, non imitatione ad nos derivari, sed multa dicit, quibus indicat, se contra sentire. Primum verba B. Pauli quibus nulla sunt apertiora pro peccato ori¬ ginali , omnino contendit non esse intelli- genda de vera propagatione peccati, ut Catholici omnes intelligunt, sed de imita¬ tione, ut Pelagiani volebant. Deinde auctorem commentariorum bre¬ vium in omnes epistolas Pauli, qua; falso tri buuntur S. Hieronymo, commendat, ut vi¬ rum valde doctum. Is enim auctor exponit illa verba : In quo omnes peccaverunt, de imi¬ tatione. At auctorem illorum commentario¬ rum fuisse Pelagium, aut Pelagianum aliquem extra controversiam est. Pelagium enim scri¬ psisse commentaria brevia in epistolas Pauli testis est Augustinus lib. m. de peccatorum meritis et remissione, cap. I. 3. et 12, et quamvis non extet nunc in illis commentariis argumentatio quaedam, quam in illis se le¬ gisse Augustinus dicit, non propterea certum est, ea commentaria non esse Pelagii : Si¬ quidem fieri potest, ut argumentatio illa sub¬ lata fuerit ab iis, qui eum librum sancti Hieronymi nomine venditare voluerunt. Sed quidquid de hoc sit, illum certum est, judicio doctorum omnium auctorem illum esse, si non Pelagium, certe Pelagianum. Adhsec, Erasmus S. Joannem Chrysosto- mum Pelagianum facere nititur, ut videlicet insignem patronum ha;resi Pelagiana; acqui¬ rat, quem tamen S. Augustinus lib. ii. in Ju¬ lianum, cap. 2. diligenter purgat, et Julia¬ num acriter reprehendit, qui eamdem notam eidem Chrysostomo inurere conabatur. Praeterea, quia videbat Erasmus, multum se premi auctoritateS. Augustini, qui totis viribus Pelagianam haeresim oppugnavit, id¬ circo enumerat ejusdem S. Augustini errata, sive quae ipse arbitrabatur errata, ut immi¬ nuat, atque extenuet quantum potest ejus au¬ ctoritatem : neque erubescit scribere S. Augu¬ stinum, S. Hieronymum, ct S. Ambrosium, in disputationibus adversus ha;reticos, non sin¬ cere Scripturas interpretari, casque ad vi¬ ctoriam detorquere. Denique diligenter monet , providendum nobis esse, ne nimis oderimus Pelagianos. CAPUT II. Addo, quod in cncomio matrimonii aperte testatur, se non audire eos, qui dicunt foe¬ dam libidinem, non a natura, sed a peccato esse profectam. 0“® omnia mirum est, si non Erasmum Pelagianum esse significent, quamvis ipse verbo Pelagianum se esse ne¬ get. Veniamus ad Zwinglium. Is in comment. cap. v. ad Hom. scribit, peccatum de quo Apostolus loquitur, cum ait : In quo omnes peccaverunt. Non esse proprie peccatum, sed effectum peccati, id est, morbum ac defe¬ ctum. Sed apertius hoc docet in libro de Ba¬ ptismo, tract. 3. in digressione de peccato originali, et apertissime in libro, qui scribi¬ tur, Declaratio de peccato originali ad Ur¬ banum Rhegium. Sed quia Henricus Bullin- gerus in serm. 10. Decad. 3. Martinus Buce¬ rus in comment. cap. 3. epist. ad Rora. Et Rudolphus Gualterus in Apologia pro Zwin- glio, nituntur cum ab hac nota modis omni¬ bus liberare, ac dicunt, Zwinglium distin¬ guere voluisse peccatum originale a peccato actuali, et cum negavit peccatum originale esse proprie peccatum, locutum esse de pec¬ cato, ut significat actionem sceleratam, quai propria voluntate committitur : id circo ne¬ cessarium esse duxi paulo diligentius Zwin- glii sententiam explicare, atque ex verbis ip¬ sius ostendere, non posse eum a Pelagii er¬ rore purgari. Primum igitur fatetur Zwinglius senten¬ tiam suam, qua dicit, peccatum originis morbum esse, non peccatum , contrariam esse communi sententia scholarum Catholi¬ carum. Sic enim loquitur in libro de Bapti¬ smo tract. 3. in digressione de peccato origi¬ nali : « Pauca quaedam de peccato originali nobis dicenda sunt, nec ignoro quot convi¬ ciorum plaustra nobis a Pontificiorum rabie, et fremitu expectanda sint, qui me etiam hanc ob causam haereticum esse clamabunt, qui Scripturas nec ipse intelligam, nec ex¬ ponam aliis, sed falsis interpretationibus cor¬ rumpam, et convellam. Sed utut fremant, peccatum originale nihil aliud esse dicimus, quam morbum illum, qui haereditario jure ab Adamo primo omnium nostrum parente in nos derivatus est. » Et infra : « Unde col¬ ligimus peccatum originale morbum quidem esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, nec damnationis poenam inferre potest, ut cumque hic nobis Theologorum disputatio¬ nes et sententiae reclamitent. » Haec ille. At catholici theologi non docent, pecca¬ 331 tum originis non distingui ab actuali, neque dicunt esse actionem sceleratam propria vo¬ luntate commissam, et tamen sentiunt esse vere, proprieque peccatum, quod hominem non solum miserum, sed etiam peccatorem et reum damnationis efficiat : Zwinglius igi¬ tur non solum negavit, peccatum originis esse peccatum actuale, ut ejus defensores et patroni contendunt, sed etiam esse vere, ac proprie peccatum, quod peccatorem et reum mortis faciat. Id enim Doctores catholici sentiunt, a quibus ille se dissentire libere con¬ fitetur. Adde quod Bucerus in comment. cap. 5. ad Rom. fatetur Theologos Catholi¬ cos qui scholastici dicuntur, rectam senten¬ tiam de peccato originis tradidisse, quare secum ipse Bucerus pugnat, cum Zwinglium defendit, qui scholasticorum sententiam de peccato originis totis viribus oppugnavit. Deinde idem Zwinglius disertis verbis ne¬ gat, morbum originalem proprie esse pecca¬ tum, et solum per metonymiam peccatum dici posse concedit. « Theologi (inquit in lib. de Baptis, tract. 3.) morbum hunc, et con¬ tagionem naturse nostrse hsereditariam, pec¬ catum originale vocare consueverunt, Pauli Apostoli dictum, quo ad Roman. cap. 5. utitur, minus probe intelligentes. Qui enim fieri potest, ut quod morbus, et contagio est, peccati nomen mereatur, vel peccatum revera sit ? » Et in declaratione de peccato originis, initio : « Quid, inquit, brevius, aut clarius dici potuit, quam originale peccatum non esse peccatum, sed morbum, et Chri¬ stianorum liberos propter morbum istum non addici seterno supplicio ? contra vero quid imbecillius dici potuit, et a canonica Scriptura alienius, quam Baptismi lavacro hanc calamitatem levari, et non tantum esse morbum, sed etiam reatum ? » Et infra, cum dixisset, peccatum originis non esse peccatum, sed morbum, definit mor¬ bum, ac dicit, esse naturalem defectum, quo nemo vel pejor, vel sceleratior dici potest; et ponit exempla, ut balbutire, laborare po¬ dagra, caecutire etc. et statim addit: «Sic ergo diximus, originalem contagionem mor¬ bum esse, non peccatum etc. » Et infra : « Hoc, inquit, volo, culpam originalem non vere, sed metonymiee a primi parentis ad¬ misso culpam vocari : Esse autem nihil aliud, quam conditionem, miseram quidem illam, at multo leviorem, quam crimen meruerat. » Et infra : « Est ergo, inquit, ista ad peccan¬ dum amore sui propensio peccatum origina- LlBK.lt IV. e, qutc quidem propensio non est proprie peccatum, sed fons quidam, ac ingenium. » Videmus igitur Zwinglium non solum distin¬ guere peccatum originis a scelerata actione, quae peccatum actuale dicitur, ut etiam Ca¬ tholici distinguunt, sed «aperte docere, pec¬ catum Originale, non esse proprie peccatum, nec inducere reatum, et solum per metony- miam interdum appellari peccatum, quia est effectus peccati. Nam ut ipse ibidem dicit, quod recentiores actuale peccatum vocant, id solum est proprie peccatum. Praeterea idem Zwinglius iu libro de Ba¬ ptismo, tractat. «3. non semel, sed saepius re¬ petit, morbum originalem non posse damna¬ tionem afferre, nisi erumpat in actionem le¬ gi divinae contrariam, qualis actio in iis so¬ lum inveniri potest, qui usum rationis ha¬ bent. Ex quo intelligimus id, quod aliquo¬ ties scribit, peccatum originale omnes dam¬ nare, nisi remedio sanguinis Christi curetur, dictum esse propter adultos, qui ex peccato originali in actualia dolabuntur, et quod ad¬ dit, se loqui de filiis fidelium tantum, cum dicit peccato originis infantes non damnari, additum esse ad mitigandam invidiam, quam ipse sibi ex hac opinione conflaverat. Nam ratio, qua ipse probat, peccatum originale non posse damnare, non ducitur ex sangui¬ ne Christi, sed ex eo quod non damnat ho¬ minem, nisi transgressio legis, et legem transgredi non potest, qui eam non novit, quales sunt infantes. (Jute ratio non minus efficit, filios infidelium non posse damnari, quam filios fidelium. Sed verba ejus audiamus : « Colligimus, inquit, peccatum originale morbum quidem esse, qui tamen per se culpabilis non est, nec damnationis poenam inferre potest, utcum que hic nobis Theologorum disputationes, et sententire reclamitent, donec homo cont.i- gione hac corruptus, legem domini transgre¬ ditur, quod tum demum fieri consuevit, cum legem sibi positam videt, et intelligit. » Et infra : « Paulus, inquit, ad Rom. m. peccati cognitionem per legem oboriri dicit. Ubi er¬ go legis cognitio nulla est, ibi nec peccati cognitio esse potest. Ubi vero cognitio pec¬ cati non est, ibi nec prcevaricatio est, adeo- que nec damnatio quoque ibidem esse po¬ test. Idem enim hoc Paulus testatur, Rom. iv. dicens : Siquidem ubi non est lex, ibi nec transgressio est (I). Jam ergo testimoniorum istorum vim, et potentiam considera, quie tanta est, ut omnia omnium Theologorum de originali peccato commenta penitus subruat : Morbus enim hic nobis damnationem airerre nequit, qua; tum demum subsequitur, cum legem oculis nostris expositam, conspicati adhuc, tamen morbo hoc et affectu corru¬ pta; natura; impulsi, legem transgredimur. Numquam enim ha;c fallet ratio, qua trans¬ gressionem nullam prorsus illic esse dicimus, ubi legis cognitio nulla est : ubi autem transgressio non est, ibi nec damnatio esse potest. Supina igitur jacet Theologorum sententia, et omnibus constat, fidelium libe¬ ros propter originalem illum, et heredita¬ rium morbum, damnationem subire nullam, quod legem, et legis sententiam ignorant. » Videsnc quam perspicue Zwinglius neget, peccatum originis damnare, et quod dicit de filiis fidelium, ceque filiis infidelium con¬ venire ? Non enim filios fidelium excipit a damnatione propter pactum «aliquod o Deo cum parentibus initum, vel propter fidem parentum, aut suam, vel propter speciale a- liquod Christi beneficium ; sed quia legem, et lcgisSentcntiam ignorant, et ubi legis cog¬ nitio non est, nec transgressio, nec damna¬ tio esse potest, qua; ratio non minu filios infidelium, quam fidelium eximit a damna¬ tionis periculo. Quocirca idem Zwinglius in declaratione de peccato originali docet probabile esse per Christum universam naturam esse restitu¬ tam, ita ut nulli omnino infantes, sive gen¬ tilium, sive fidelium filii sint, pereant; nulli etiam adulti, quamvis gentiles, si opus legis scriptum ostendant in cordibus suis. Ubi quod dicit de restitutione per Christum, non alio referri videtur, quam ad errorem tegen¬ dum, et invidiam declinandam. Nam Christi sanguis, omnium consensu, tum Catholico¬ rum, tum etiam Lutheranorum, non prodest, nisi instrumento aliquo «applicetur, Sacra¬ mento videlicet, fide, aut si quod est aliud. Proinde nulla ratione fingi potest, Christi sanguine naturam universam a peccato ori¬ ginali absolute et generaliter esse liberatam, et ratio qua Zwinglius prob.it peccatum ori - ginis non posse damnare infantes, non fun¬ datur (ut supra ostendimus) in beneficio Christi, sed in eo, quod ubi non est pnevari- catio, ibi non est damnatio ; et non est pr«e- varicatio ubi non est cognitio legis. (1) Rom. IV, 15. CAPUT IU. ‘ilii; Denique quod Zwinglius omnino credi¬ derit, peccatum originis non solum distingui ab actuali peccato, sed vere et proprie non esse peccatum, nec facere hominem reum, perspicuum est ex eodein lib. qui inscribi¬ tur : Declaratio de peccato originali, ultra medium libri, ubi dicit, infantes, quandiu legis capaces non sunt, in statu esse inno¬ centiae. Quomodo enim poterat clarius infan¬ tes a statu peccati eximere, quam asseren¬ do eos in statu innocentiae degere ? Sed objiciunt Zwinglii defensores, Gualte- rus, Bucerus, et Bullingerus confessionem quandam Zwinglii, in qua peccatum origi¬ nis agnoscere sc dicit, et per illud omnes per¬ ire, nisi Christi sanguine redimantur. Re¬ spondeo, non esse mirum, neque novum ; ut haeretici vel secum ipsi pugnent, vel fraudu- • lentas confessiones edant, quod etiam Pela¬ gium fecisse, supra docuimus. Itaque veri¬ simile est, Zwinglium, ne a Lutheranis om¬ nibus haereseos damnaretur, in verbis con¬ fessionis cum Luthero convenisse. Et tamen eadem illa verba multo aliter intellexisse, quam Lutherus et Lutherani existimarent, forte enim significare voluit, per originale peccatum omnes perire, nisi Christi sangui¬ ne redimantur, quia propensio ad peccan¬ dum, quae apud ipsum est originale pecca¬ tum, omnes ad peccandum impellit, cum le¬ gis cognitionem habere incipiunt, ut ipse in eodem libro saepe repetit. Unum hoc loco non est praetereundum, Zwinglii sententiam alio atque alio modo Lutheranis, et Catholicis esse contrariam. Nam tria Zwinglius docet. Primo, ex pecca¬ to primi hominis redundare in omnes homi¬ nes morbum quemdam, id est, propensionem quamdam ad peccandum, quae concupiscen¬ tia ab aliis dici solet. Secundo, hunc mor¬ bum non esse proprie, sed mctonymice pec¬ catum, id est, effectum et causam peccati. Tertio, hunc ipsum morbum esse peccatum originale, ac per hoc originale peccatum non proprie, sed mctonymice tantum esse pec¬ catum. Ex his tribus, in primo convenimus om¬ nes, in secundo convenit Zwinglius cum Catholicis, dissentit a Lutheranis ; Catholici enim (ut in disputatione de concupiscentia demonstrabimus) concupiscentiam radicem, seu fomitem peccatorum esse volunt, non ta¬ men peccatum, nisi ei ratio ipsa consentiat, Lutherani contra concupiscentiam verum peccatum esse contendunt, sive illi ratio consentiat, sive repugnet. In tertio convenit Zwinglius cum Lutheranis, dissidet a Catho¬ licis. Nos enim (ut paulo post docebimus) praeter concupiscentiam agnoscimus in ho¬ mine ex Adami semine propagato justitiae privationem, et habitualem quamdam ab ip¬ so Deo aversionem, nec non reatum quem¬ dam et maculam, quae ipsum hominem vere, ac proprie peccatorem efficiunt, et exitio sempiterno addicunt, nisi Christi sanguine redimatur. Lutherani autem, ut donum ju¬ stitiae originalis naturae superadditum atque habituale minime agnoscunt, ita nec ejus privationem agnoscere possunt, et ideo pec¬ catum originis in ipsa concupiscentia, quam tamen proprie peccatum esse volunt, consti¬ tuere et collocare coguntur. Ex quo sequi¬ tur, ut ipsi etiam Lutherani peccatum ori¬ ginis negent, quamvis acriter pro eo asse¬ rendo contra Zwinglium pugnent. Nam (ut diximus paulo ante, et suo loco infra proba¬ bimus) concupiscentia illa non est peccatum, nisi mctonymice, ut Zwinglius docet. Sed de his postea.