Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 3: That some sin of the true name is derived from the sin of Adam into his posterity is proved from chapter 5 of Romans
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).
Now the Catholic truth of the faith — which against the Pelagians, both old and recent, teaches that sin truly and properly so called is derived into the posterity of Adam through generation — must be confirmed: first, by testimonies of the Scriptures; then, by the tradition of the Councils and Fathers; last, also by reasons.
The first, then, and principal testimony of Scripture is had in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 5, in those words: Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. And below: By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners. From these words such an argument can be drawn. Through one man there entered into this world a certain sin, which made all men sinners, and thereby liable to death. But such a sin cannot be actual — that is, committed by an actual will — since even infants are liable to death, and often die before they could design anything of good or evil by their own will; therefore it is original sin.
This argument could be weakened in three ways. First, if one should say that “sin,” in those words — by one man sin entered into this world — signifies not the original sin of the sons of Adam, but the actual sin itself of Adam, which is said to have entered into the world through one man because sin then first began to be in the world when it was in Adam, who was a part of the world. This explication Zwingli seems to indicate in the book On Baptism (in the digression on original sin), where he says thus: “The sense of Paul's words is this: Sin entered into the world through one man, namely Adam. For he first transgressed by despising the precept of the Lord.” Next, our argument can be eluded in another way, if one should contend that sin in this place signifies original sin, but that the Apostle spoke of sin not properly, but metonymically — so that the sense is: through one man sin entered into this world, that is, one man sinning, a certain disease — a proneness to sinning — and mortality too, and other hardships not light, entered into the world; for these effects of sin blessed Paul, by the figure of metonymy, named sin. So the same Zwingli expounds in the commentary on chapter 5 of the epistle to the Romans; and it is credible that the same was the opinion of the Pelagians, who said that not sin itself, but the effect of sin, is drawn from Adam. Finally, in a third way our argument could be altogether shaken, if one should show that sin entered into the world not by propagation, but by imitation — as, after Pelagius, Erasmus endeavored to demonstrate, who (as Titelmans observes in the collation on the epistle to the Romans) accommodated his whole version to this opinion. For where the ancient version had “by one man,” he rendered “on account of one man”; and where we read “death passed upon all men,” he rendered “death spread through all men”; and where before it was “in whom all have sinned,” he put “inasmuch as we all have sinned.”
But it will be easy (God helping) to overthrow those three expositions — or rather depravations — and to establish that one explanation which alone is true, which teaches that sin properly taken entered into the world — that is, into the posterity of Adam — not by imitation, but by propagation, through one man, namely Adam.
That first exposition, then, which interprets the word “sin” of the actual sin of Adam himself, is refuted openly enough: because not through one man, but through one Angel, did sin enter into this world, if sin be said to have entered into the world because someone who was in the world began to sin. Or, if the discourse be of the corporal world, not through one man — that is, Adam — but through one woman did sin enter into this world; since Eve sinned before Adam, and, she sinning, sin began to be in the world. If anyone object that Ambrose, in the commentary, expounded “by one man” as “by Eve,” we shall answer that those commentaries are not judged by learned men to be of St. Ambrose; and, whosesoever they be, that exposition — by one man, that is, by Eve — is commonly rejected not only by our men, but even by the adversaries, as by Zwingli and the rest; nor undeservedly. For that “by one,” which is of the masculine gender, sufficiently indicates that by “man” in this place a male is signified, not a woman. Which is also confirmed from those words: in whom all have sinned. For the Apostle speaks of the same one when he says “by one” and “in whom” — and each is of the masculine gender. It is added that in the whole chapter Christ is compared with Adam, as also in 1 Corinthians 15, where it is said: In Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive. And so, since the Apostle refers the cause of the sin which entered into the world to Adam, and this cannot be understood of actual sin — since that took its beginning not through Adam, but through Eve — it follows that it is necessarily understood of original sin. Secondly, the same exposition is refuted from those words: and by sin death. For sin entered into the world in the same way that death entered; but death did not enter into the world by reason of Adam alone, as though he alone or first died — for before him Abel died, and all, as we experience, even infants, die. Therefore neither did sin enter into the world by reason of Adam alone — because, namely, he actually sinned, and so sin was in the world because it was in Adam, who was a part of the world; otherwise the Apostle would have had to say: through Adam sin entered into the world, and through Abel death. Thirdly, it is refuted from the words following. For when the Apostle adds — and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned — he explains that by “the world” he understood all men. For he gathers, from this that sin is the cause of death, that death therefore passed to all men because through one man sin had passed to all men. Wherefore when he says, By one man sin entered into this world, it is the same as if he had said: By one man sin entered into all men. And since the actual sin of Adam did not enter into all men, it follows that the original entered.
Now the second exposition, which is properly of Lefèvre, of Zwingli, and of the Pelagians, who by the sin which entered into the world will have the effects of sin understood, is refuted by a manifest reason. For the Apostle sets down each distinctly — sin as the cause, and death as the effect. For thus he says: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death. But if by the name of sin were understood the effect of sin, certainly by “sin” death would be understood, which is the primary and clearest effect of sin; and thereby, when it is said “sin entered into this world, and by sin death,” the sense would be: death entered into this world, and by death death. If anyone say that by sin in this place is understood not death, but another effect of sin, which Zwingli teaches to be the chief one — namely, the proneness to sinning — the response is at hand: for it is not the proneness to sinning that is the cause of death, but true and properly-so-called sin itself. For the wages of sin is death, Romans 6; and, The soul that sinneth, the same shall die, Ezechiel 18. And God did not say to Adam, “in what day soever thou shalt be prone to sinning,” but, “in what day soever thou shalt eat of the forbidden tree, thou shalt die the death.” Finally, among us it is those who in very deed steal or kill, not those who are prone to stealing or killing, that are wont to be visited with the extreme punishment. Moreover, although sin is sometimes taken metonymically for the punishment of sin, yet the verb “to sin” seems incapable of being expounded, save violently and most harshly, for “to be punished,” or “to become mortal,” or “to die corporally”; nor will any testimony, as I judge, be found in the Scriptures for this acceptation. Since, then, the Apostle has said not only that sin entered into the world through one man, but also that in one man all sinned, and that, because they sinned and have sin and have been made sinners, they are therefore delivered to death, which is the punishment of sin — he cannot but contradict the Apostle who should say that through one man only the punishment of sin, and not also true and properly-so-called sin itself, flowed forth to the rest of men. Add lastly that (as the Second Council of Orange, canon 2, teaches) “he is convicted of ascribing injustice to God who says that death, which is the punishment of sin, passed to us without sin, which is the desert of death.”
The third exposition, which has greater verisimilitude, must be refuted a little more accurately, as St. Augustine refutes it, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 9 and following, and in epistle 89 to Hilary, question 3. First, then, that sin entered into this world through one man not by imitation, but by propagation, is proved from the intention and purpose of blessed Paul. For in almost the whole epistle to the Romans, or certainly in the greater part of it, the purpose of blessed Paul was to show that all men, Jews as well as gentiles, have been called to the grace of the Gospel without any preceding merits. And this he efficaciously proves in chapter 5, which we now have in hand, from this: that there is no man who does not have sin derived to him from the first origin, and who did not sin when Adam sinned, and who, finally, was not made a sinner from the first disobedience of the first man. Which argument of the Apostle would be utterly weak and infirm, if the sin of the first man had passed to his posterity by imitation alone. For who would dare affirm that all men have sinned, or hereafter will sin, by imitation of Adam, when very many have never known anything of Adam or of his sin?
Secondly, it is proved from that particle “as.” For when the Apostle says — Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death — that comparative particle, “as,” requires the other member of the comparison, which can be no other than this: so by one man (namely Christ) entered justice, and by justice life. But it is certain that justice did not enter into the world by the imitation of Christ, but by the regeneration which is through Christ. From which it follows that likewise sin did not enter into the world by the imitation of Adam, but by generation from Adam. And that no other comparison can be indicated by the Apostle than that which is between Christ and Adam will be plain if we consult the interpreters of this place. For all the expositions fall back into the same sentence; and I find three expositions in all. The first is of Origen, which Ambrose, Haymo, and very many others follow. These teach that the sentence of the Apostle is imperfect: that the other member of the comparison was omitted, but is to be supplied as we set it down above. The second exposition is of St. Augustine, book 6 [al. 1] against Julian, chapter 1 (in the Louvain edition, chapter 4 [al. 12]): that the other member of the comparison is had in the preceding words, where we read that we have been reconciled to God through Christ. For St. Augustine — whom St. Thomas follows in the commentary on this place — will have the Apostle render the reason why we have been reconciled to God through Christ, and say that we therefore had to be reconciled to God through Christ as through a second Adam, because through one man, who is the first Adam, sin had entered into this world, and through sin death; so that the words are connected in this way: We glory in God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom we have now received reconciliation — wherefore, as by one man sin entered into this world — that is: we therefore received reconciliation through Christ “as by one,” because in the same way through one man sin entered into this world. The third exposition, which seems to me most apt, is of the same Origen in the commentary, and of St. Augustine in the explication of certain propositions of the epistle to the Romans: that the other member of the comparison is had a little below, in those words: “Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.” For it is familiar to the Apostle to interrupt his discourse with certain interposed matters, and then to resume and finish what he had begun. We see, then, that whatever exposition be chosen, the comparison is always made between Adam and Christ. For what Jacques Lefèvre says — that the conjunction “and” is superfluous, and that the Apostolic sentence is to be read in this way: Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, so death passed upon all men (in which way Zwingli also reads, in the book On Baptism) — is unworthy of refutation; since all the codices, Greek, Latin, Syriac, have that conjunction, nor has any variety of reading been observed hitherto in this place; and Origen, a most ancient author, and after him many others, have noted that the Pauline sentence seems imperfect on account of that conjunction “and” — because Paul did not say “so death passed upon all men,” but “and so death passed upon all men.”
Thirdly, it is proved from those words: By one man. For if imitation were treated of, the Apostle would have said not “by one man,” but “by one Angel sin entered into the world.” For he is the first who sinned, and they imitate him who are of his side, as is said in Wisdom 2. Moreover, that “by” is a causal particle, as is plain from that whole chapter, where “by” is very often set down, and always signifies a true cause — and such a cause he is not whom others imitate only by accident, or materially. And since they who sin do not sin in order to imitate Adam — for (as we said above) many have heard nothing of Adam, and they who have heard something of him are not wont to think of him while they sin — it follows that the Apostle could not rightly say that the rest sin “through Adam.” And this indeed Erasmus saw, and therefore changed that “by” into “on account of,” so that the Apostle may seem to say that on account of Adam — that is, by the occasion of Adam — sin entered into the world. But this Erasmus did both against the authority of the Latin codices, even the most ancient (for in all is read “by”), and against the rules of the Greek tongue, which demand that the particle διά, when it governs the genitive, signify “by”; when it governs the accusative, “on account of” — which rules Erasmus himself also is wont everywhere to observe. For in chapter 4 to the Romans (not to seek examples far) διά with the accusative is found four times in the last period, and Erasmus always renders it, as also the other interpreters, “on account of”; but in chapter 5, διά with the genitive is found more than twelve times, and both Erasmus and the others have always rendered it “by” — except in this place, where it pleased Erasmus to change “by” into “on account of.” And it is wonderful that, when the Apostle in the same period twice puts διά with the genitive, saying δι’ ἑνὺς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθε, καὶ διὲ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, Erasmus in the first place rendered “on account of,” in the second, “by.” It is plain, then, that the true reading is “by one man,” and thereby that Adam was the true cause of the sin with which we are all born.
Fourthly, it is proved from those words: And by sin death. For the Apostle teaches that sin is the cause of death in the same way that Adam was the cause of the sin which entered into the world. For thus he says: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death. But certainly sin is not the cause of death by imitation, or improperly, or by accident and by occasion, but because sin begets death, as St. James speaks in his epistle, chapter 1. Therefore Adam also was the cause of sin, not by imitation, or improperly, or by accident and by occasion, but because, himself made a sinner, he begot sinner sons.
Fifthly, it is proved from the words following: And so death passed upon all men. For that word “passed” indicates the manner in which sin and death entered into this world. Namely, sin and death did not halt in Adam himself; but, when they had passed to his sons, neither did they take their end in them, but passed through the sons to the grandsons, through the grandsons to the great-grandsons, and through them, in their order, to all posterity — so that the manner of the propagation of nature and of sin is the same. Wherefore Erasmus would not render in this place “passed through,” as the ancient interpreter had done, but “spread” — which word does not so explain the propagation of sin but that it can also be referred to imitation. But our reading rests not only on the authority of the most ancient interpreter, approved by the universal Church, but also on the Syriac edition, in which, for the Greek verb διῆλθεν, there is a verb which is Hebrew and properly signifies “to pass over” — whence also comes the word for a ford or passage. Add that St. Augustine, sermon 4 [al. 14] on the words of the Apostle, near the end, not only acknowledges our reading, but also weighs the force of the word “passed,” and thence proves the propagation of original sin.
Sixthly, it is proved from those words: In whom all have sinned. For (as St. Augustine gathers, book 4 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 4) it is necessary that that “in whom” signify: in which Adam, or in which sin, or in which death. For in the preceding words of the same sentence mention was made of these three only; and the pronoun “whom” must without doubt refer to something antecedent. Now it cannot rightly be expounded “in whom” — that is, “in which sin” — because sin in the Greek tongue is of the feminine gender, ἁμαρτία, and “in whom,” in Greek ἐφ’ ῷ, is of the masculine gender. Nor can “in whom” be taken as “in which death,” although death in Greek is of the masculine gender, θάνατος, since men do not sin in death, but rather die in sin. It remains, then, that “in whom” signifies “in which Adam,” so that it is the explication of what had been said — by one man sin entered into this world. For therefore did sin enter into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death pass upon all men, because in that one all men sinned. But if in that one man, namely Adam, all sinned, it cannot be denied that original sin is drawn by propagation, not by imitation. For not they who imitate Adam by sinning can be said to have sinned in him, but they who therefore have sin because they are born of him who, when he sinned, bore in himself alone the person of all.
But Erasmus meets us, and teaches that that Greek ἐφ’ ῷ should have been rendered “inasmuch as,” or “in so far as,” or “because”: for in Greek the preposition “in” is not ἐπί, but ἐν; and therefore he himself so renders, and in the same way at this time render all the sectaries, who rejoice not so much in truth as in novelty. But even if we read not “in whom” but “inasmuch as,” our argument would not thereby be shaken. For if death passed upon all men inasmuch as all sinned, without doubt it will be impossible to deny that infants also sinned, since we see that they too are mortal, and often die in infancy itself; but what is the sin of infants, if there is no original sin? Can actual sin be found in them, of whom Scripture testifies that they have done nothing of good or evil? But there is no need to descend to these things, since that reading, “in whom,” is most true, and is defended without any trouble from the calumnies of the adversaries — if, namely, to their novelty we oppose the consent of the ancients, not only Latin but also Greek, who beyond doubt knew the force of the Greek preposition better than Erasmus or Lefèvre. Thus Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius — Greeks — explain in express words “in which Adam.” That Hilary expounded likewise, Augustine testifies, book 4 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 4. The same exposition is in the commentary which is attributed to Ambrose. The same is of Haymo, Anselm, Thomas, and others. Further, St. Augustine not only constantly expounded everywhere in this same way, but also, in book 6 against Julian, chapter 12, relates that the exposition which Erasmus and the innovators now follow — that “in whom” signifies “in so far as,” or “because” — was proposed by Julian; and he adds that that explication is new, distorted, false, and of a man wonderfully impudent, or rather raving. Nor is it true, as Erasmus says, that ἐπί does not signify “in”; for in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 9, what in Greek is ἐπὶ βρώμασιν, Erasmus himself with the rest renders “in meats”; and that ἐπὶ νεκροῖς he renders “in the dead.” Nor are other testimonies wanting, but these two suffice. This is to be added in this place: that St. Augustine is reprehended by Erasmus in vain for having thought that that “in whom” could signify “in which sin,” though sin in Greek is of the feminine gender. For Augustine, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 10, when perchance he had not consulted the Greek text, wrote that that “in whom,” whether it be referred to Adam or to the sin, is an evident testimony for original sin. Yet the same (as we said a little before), in book 4 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 4, admonished in express words that “in whom” cannot be referred to the sin, since “in whom” is of the masculine gender, and sin among the Greeks of the feminine.
Seventhly, it is proved from the words following: For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. For the Apostle teaches by these words that before the law was given sin was not known, and thereby was not reckoned as sin; yet that in very truth there was sin in the world — not only actual, which began to be known through the law, but also original, which can be gathered from death, which reigned over all, even the little ones, who did not sin after the similitude of the transgression of Adam — that is, by act and their own will, as Adam sinned. Now there are in this place two readings. One is with the negation, as we have cited and expounded it; and this Chrysostom follows, and the other later Greeks, and St. Augustine in epistle 89 to Hilary. The other is without the negation: death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them who have sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam; and this Origen follows, and the commentary which is inscribed to Ambrose; and according to this reading the sense would be: death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them who sinned only after the similitude of the transgression of Adam — that is, on account of the similitude which they have with Adam through the communication of the same sin.
Eighthly, it is proved from those words: “Who is a figure of him who was to come.” For by the consent of all, Adam is called the figure of him who was to come — that is, of Christ — because he was like him in genus, not in species. For each poured something into his sons, but unlike as to species: Adam sin, Christ justice. Now Christ poured forth justice not by imitation, but by regeneration; therefore Adam also transmitted sin not by imitation, but by generation. And indeed (as St. Augustine admonishes, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 14), if blessed Paul were speaking of the similitude of those who furnished to the rest an example of sinning or of doing well, he would compare Adam not with Christ, but with Abel. For as Adam was the first who by example taught the rest to sin, so Abel was the first who by living well shone before the rest, and whom absolutely all could imitate. But Christ, who was so many ages later than Adam as to the flesh — how could so many who preceded him have imitated him?
Ninthly, it is proved from those words: And the judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offences, unto justification. For, as the same Augustine teaches in the same book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapters 12 and 13, if Adam were not the cause of the sin which is in his posterity except because his posterity imitate him, no reason could be rendered why the Apostle should say: judgment from one, grace from many. For why not judgment from one, grace from one; or judgment from many, grace from many? For as the judgment of God condemns men for the many offences which they learned from that one offence of Adam, so the grace of God justifies men from the many offences which they learned from that one offence of Adam. For as between the offence of Adam and the damnation of others there lie many proper offences of their own, so also between the offence of Adam and the justification of others there lie many proper offences of their own. But if it be conceded that Adam was the cause of the sin of all his posterity by generation, the cause of that diversity is at hand. For the judgment is from one unto condemnation, but grace from many offences unto justification, for this reason: that Adam transmitted into us by carnal generation one offence only, and from it the whole mass of the human race was condemned; but Christ by spiritual regeneration justifies us not from that one only, which we contracted by being born, but from all the others which we added by living ill.
Tenthly, it is proved from those words: For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. For here we have not only the comparison of Adam with Christ, of which we have now often spoken, but also that the one disobedience of the one Adam was common to many — and so common that by it they are truly made sinners. But because some cannot be made sinners by the sins of others, it follows that the disobedience of Adam — not as it was in him, but as it is poured over to his posterity by generation — makes all those sinners who are born of him.
Let there come, last, the definition of the Council of Milevis, canon 2, which teaches that the place of the Apostle, Romans 5 — By one man sin entered into this world, etc. — is not to be understood otherwise than of original sin, which is contracted by generation. And what Erasmus says — that the Council was particular, and that therefore he is by no means bound by its decrees — seems to us said proudly and rashly, especially since that Council was confirmed by the Apostolic see, as is agreed from the epistle of Innocent I to the Council of Milevis, which epistle is had in tome 1 of the Councils, and among the epistles of St. Augustine, number 93. This decree of the Council of Milevis has also been carried into the body of the Canon Law, On Consecration, distinction 4, canon Placuit. And finally the universal Council celebrated in this our age at Trent, session 5, renewed the same decree in the same words — so that now to no one who wishes to be held a Catholic is it lawful to doubt of the explication of this Apostolic place.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III. Derivari ex peccato Adami in posteros aliquod veri nominis peccatum , probatur ex cap. 5. ad Romanos. Jam veritas Catholica fidei, qua adversus Pelagianos, tum veteres, tum recentes do¬ cet, peccatum vere, ac proprie dictum in posteros Adami per generationem derivari, confirmanda est, primum, testimoniis Scri¬ pturarum. Deinde, traditione Conciliorum ac Patrum. Postremo etiam rationibus. Primum igitur, ac praecipium Scripturae testimonium habetur in epist. ad Rom. cap. 3. in illis verbis : Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors , et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit , in quo omnes peccarunt. Et infra : Per inobedientiam unius hominsi peccatores constituti sunt multi (I). Ex his verbis tale argumentum duci potest. Per unum hominem intravit in hunc mundum quoddam peccatum, quod omnes homines (1) Rom. V, 12. ' LIBER IV. peccatores, et per hoc morti obnoxios fecit. At ejusmodi peccatum non potest actuale, id esi, actuali voluntate commissum, cum etiam infantes sint morti obnoxii, et sa;pe moriantur antequam quicquam boni vel ma¬ li propria voluntate designare potuerint : igitur est peccatum originale. Hoc argumentum tribus modis infirmari posset. Primum, si quis diceret, peccatum, in illis verbis : Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit , non sgnificare pec¬ catum originale filiorum Adam, sed ipsum actuale peccatum Adami, quod per unum hominem dicitur introisse in mundum, quia tum primum coepit esse peccatum in mundo, quando fuit in Adamo, qui erat pars mundi. Hanc explicationem indicare videtur Zwin- glius in lib. de Baptismo (in digressione de pec. originali) ubi sic ait : « Sensus verbo¬ rum Pauli hic est : Peccatum per unum ho¬ minem, Adamum nempe, in mundum in¬ travit. Is enim primus praeceptum Domini contemnendo praevaricatus est. » Deinde alio modo potest argumentum nostrum eludi, si quis contenderet, pecca¬ tum hoc loco significare peccatum originale, sed Apostolum sed peccato non proprie, sed metonymice esse locutum, ut sensus sit : Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, hoc est, peccante une ho¬ mine morbus quidam, id est, pronitasad pec¬ candum, mortalitas quoque, et alise non le¬ ves aerumnae in mundum intrarunt. Hos enim peccati effectus B. Paulus per figuram me- tonymioe peccatum nominavit. Ita exponit idem Zwinglius in comment. cap. 5. epist. ad Roman. Et eamdem fuisse credibile est, sententiam Pelagianorum, qui non ipsum peccatum, sed effectum peccati ex Adamo trahi dicebant. Denique tertio modo posset argumentum nostrum omnino labefactari, si quis osten¬ deret, peccatum in mundum introisse, non propagatione, sed imitatione, ut post Pela¬ gium Erasmus demonstrare conatus est, qui (ut animadvertit Titelmannus in collatione de epist. ad Roman.) totam versionem suam ad hanc sententiam accommodavit. Nam ubi antiqua versio habebat, per unum hominem, ipse reddidit propter unum hominem, et ubi legebamus, in omnes homines mors pertrans- iit, vertit ipse : in omnes homines mors per¬ vasit. Et ubi antea erat in quo omnes pec¬ caverunt, posuit ipse : quatenus omnes pec¬ cavimus. Sed facile erit (Deo juvante) tres istas ex¬ positiones, vel potius depravationes everte¬ re ; et illam unam explanationem stabilire, quoe sola est vera, quae docet, peccatum proprie acceptum, non imitatione, sed pro¬ pagatione in mundum, hoc est, Adami po¬ steros per unum hominem, Adamum videli¬ cet, introisse. Prima igitur illa expositio, quae vocem (peccatum) interpretatur de peccato actuali ipsius Adami, refellitur satis aperte, quia non per unum hominem, sed per unum An¬ gelum peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, s< peccatum intrasse dicatur in mundum, quia peccare coepit aliquis, qui erat in mun¬ do. Vel si de mundo corporali sermo sit, non per unum hominem, id est Adamum, sed per unam foeminam peccatum in hunc mun¬ dum intravit. Siquidem Eva afitb peccavit, quam Adam, et ipsa peccante, coepit esse peccatum in mundo. Si quis objiciat Ambr. in commentario ex¬ posuisse, per unum hominem, id est, per Evam, respondebimus, commentaria illa non censeri a viris doctis esse S. Ambrosii ; et cujuscumque sint, eam expositionem, per unum hominem, id est, per Evam, commu¬ niter rejici non solum a nostris, sed etiam ab adversariis, ut a Zwinglio et caeteris ; nec immerito. Nam illud, per unum, quod est generis masculini, satis indicat per hominem , hoc loco significari virum, noa foeminam. Quod etiam confirmatur ex verbis illis : In quo omnes peccaverunt. Nam de eodem lo¬ quitur Apostolus, cum ait : Per unum. Et : in quo , utrumque autem est generis mascu¬ lini. Accedit quod in toto cap. confertur Chri¬ stus cum Adamo, ut etiam I. ad Gorinth. xv. ubi dicitur : In Adam omnes moriuntur, in Christo omnes vivificabuntur (1). Itaque cum Apostolus causam peccati, quod in mundum intravit, referat in Adamum, et non possit hoc intelligi de peccato actuali, cum illud non per Adamum, sed per Evam initium coeperit, sequitur, ut necessario in- telligatur de peccato originali. Refellitur secundo eadem expositio ex il¬ lis verbis : Et per peccatum mors. Nam ita intravit peccatum in mundum, ut intravit mors : Sed mors non intravit in mundum (1) Corin. XV, 22. CAPUT III. ♦ J ' » V ratione solius Adami, quasi ipse solus, aut primus sit mortuus, nam ante ipsum Abel mortuus est, et omnes, ut experimur, etiam infantes moriuntur. Non igitur peccatum in¬ travit in mundum ratione solius Adami, quia ipse videlicet actualiter peccaverit, et sic peccatum fuerit in mundo, quia fuit in Adamo, qui erat pars mundi, alioqui opor¬ tuisset Apostolum dicere, per Adamum pec¬ catum in mundum intravit, et per Abelem mors. Tertio refellitur ex verbis sequentibus. Nam cum Apostolus addit : Et ita in omnes homines mors per transiit, in quo omnes pecca¬ verunt, explicat per mundum, se intelle¬ xisse omnes homines. Colligit enim ex eo quod peccatum est causa mortis, ideo in om¬ nes homines mortem transisse, quia per Unum hominem in omnes homines peccatum transierat. Quare cum ait : Per unum homi¬ nem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit , idem est ac si dixisset : Per unum hominem pec¬ catum in omnes homines intravit. Et quo¬ niam non intravit in omnes homines actuale peccatum Adce, sequitur, ut intraverit origi¬ nale. Jam altera expositio, quaj proprie Fabri, Zwinglii, et Pelagianorum est, qui per pecca¬ tum, quod in mundum intravit, effectus pec¬ cati intelligi volunt, manifesta ratione refel¬ litur. Siquidem Apostolus utrumque distin¬ cte ponit, peccatum ut causam, et mortem ut effectum. Sic enim ait : Per unum homi¬ nem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit , et per peccatum mors. Quod si nomine peccati in- telligeretur effectus peccati, certe per pec¬ catum mors intelligeretur, quae est prima¬ rius, et clarissimus peccati effectus. Ae per hoc cum dicitur, peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors, sensus esset, mors in hunc mundum intravit, et per mor¬ tem mors. Si quis dicat, per peccatum hoc loco non intelligi mortem, sed alium peccati effectum, quem prajcipuum Zwinglius esse docet, pro- nitatem videlicetad peccandum ; in promptu est responsio : non enimpronitasad peccan¬ dum est causa mortis, sed ipsum verum, et proprie dictum peccatum. Nam stipendium peccatimors, ad Roman. vi. Et, Anima quse peccaverit , ispa morietur , Ezech. xvm (1). Et Adamo non dixit Deus : quacumque die pronus fuerisad peccandum, sed : quacumque die comederis de ligno vetito, morte morie¬ ris. Denique, apud nos qui re ipsa furantur, aut occidunt, non qui proni sunt ad furan¬ dum, vel occidendum, extremo supplicio af¬ fici solent. Praeterea licet peccatum metonymice pro poena peccati interdum accipiatur, tamen verbum (peccare) non videtur nisi violenter, et durissime exponi posse pro eo, quod est, puniri, aut mortalem fieri, aut corporaliter mori ; neque in Scripturis ullum testimo¬ nium, ut existimo, pro hac acceptione inve¬ nietur. Cum igitur Apostolus non solum dixerit, peccatum in mundum intrasse per unum ho¬ minem, sed etiam in uno homine omnes peccasse, et quia peccaverunt, et peccatum habent, et peccatores constituti sunt, ideo morti, quai poena peccati est, addictos esse, non potest non Apostolo repugnare, qui per unum hominem solam poenam peccati, non etiam ipsum verum, proprieque dictum pec¬ catum ad reliquos homines promanasse di¬ xerit. Adde ultimo quod (ut Concilium Arau- sicanum II. can. 2. docet) « injustitiam Deo dare convincitur qui mortem, quae est poena peccati, sine peccato, quod est meritum mortis, ad nos transisse dicit. » Tertia expositio, quae majorem habet ve¬ risimilitudinem paulo accuratius refellenda est, ut eam refellit S. Augustinus lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remissione cap. 9. et sequentibus, et in epist. 89. ad Hilarium quaest. 3. Primum igitur, peccatum non imi¬ tatione, sed propagatione per unum homi¬ nem in hunc mundum intrasse probatur ex intentione et proposito beati Pauli. Nam in tota fere epist. ad Roman. aut certe in ma¬ jore parte ejus, propositum B. Paulo erat ostendere, omnes homines, tam Judaeos, quam gentiles vocatos esse ad gratiam Evan- gelii sine ullis praecedentibus meritis. Id au¬ tem efficaciter probat in c. 5. quod nunc habemus in manibus, ex eo quod nullus est homo, qui peccatum non habeat ad se ex prima origine derivatum, quique Adamo peccante, non peccaverit ; qui denique non sit peccator ex prima primi hominis ino- bedientia constitutus. Quod argumentum Apostoli debile prorsus, atque infirmum es¬ set, si peccatum primi hominis ad posteros sola imitatione transisset. Quis enim affir¬ mare auderet, omnes homines Adami imita¬ ti) Rom. VI, 23: Eaech. XVIIIT 4, 20. LIBER IV. tionc peccasse, aut deinceps peccaturos, cum plurimi nihil unquam de Adamo, aut ejus peccato cognoverint. Secundo probatur ex illa particula sicut. Cum enim Apostolus dicit : Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mun¬ dum intravit et per peccatum mors, illa particula comparativa, Sicut, requirit alte¬ ram partem comparationis, qua) non alia potest esso, quam ista : ita per unum homi¬ nem (Christum videlicet) intravit justitia; et per justitiam vita : certum autem est justi¬ tiam non intrasse in mundum per imitatio¬ nem Christi, sed per regenerationem, quae est per Christum. Ex quo sequitur, ut simili¬ ter peccatum non intraverit in mundum per imitationem Adami, sed per generationem ex Adamo. Non posse autem aliam esse comparationem ab Apostolo indicatam, quam illam, qua: est inter Christum et Ada- mum, perspicuum erit, si consulamus inter¬ pretes hujus loci. Omnes enim expositiones in eamdem sententiam recidunt, at tres om¬ nino expositiones invenio. Prima est Origenis, quam sequuntur Am¬ brosius, Haymo, et alii permulti. Docent hi, sensum Apostoli esse imperfectum, alteram enim partem comparationis omissam esse, sed supplendam, ut nos supra posuimus. Altera expositio est S. Augustini lib. vi. in. Julian. cap. 1. in editione Lovaniensi cap. 4; alteram partem comparationis habe¬ ri in superioribus verbis, ubi legimus, nos per Christum Deo reconciliatos esse. Vult enim S. Augustinus, quem sequitur S. Tho- mas in commentario hujus loci, Apostolum reddere rationem, cur per Christum simus Deo reconciliati ac dicere, propterea nos per Christum, quasi per secundum Adamum Deo reconciliari debuisse, quia per unum hominem, qui est primus Adamus, peccatum in hunc mundum intraverat, et per pecca¬ tum mors. Ita ut verba hoc modo conne- ctantur : Gloriamur in Deo per Jesum Chri¬ stum Dominum nostrum, per quem nunc re¬ conciliationem accepimus, propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mun¬ dum intravit, id est, propterea reconciliatio¬ nem accepimus per Christum, sicut per unum, id est, quia eodem modo per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intra¬ vit. Tertia expositio, quae aptissima mihi vi¬ detur, est ejusdem Origenis in commentario, et S. Augustini in explicatione aliquot pro¬ positionum epist. ad Roman., alteram partem comparationis haberi paulo inferius in illis verbis ; « Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines- in ju¬ stificationem vita:. » Familiare enim est Apostolo interrumpere orationem aliquibus interpositis, ac deinde resumere et perficere, quod inchoaverat. Videmus igitur quaecumque expositio eli¬ gatur, semper fieri comparationem inter Adamum et Christum. Quod enim Jacobus Faber dicit, supervacaneam esse conjunctio¬ nem (et), atque hoc modo legendam esse Apostolicam sententiam : Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mun¬ dum intravit, et per peccatum mors, ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit ; quemad¬ modum etiam legit Zwinglius in lib. de Bapti" smo ; indignum est refutatione, cum omnes codices, Graeci, Latini, Syri, cam conjun¬ ctionem habeant, nec ulla sit hactenus ob¬ servata in hoc loco lectionis varietas, et Ori- genes antiquissimus auctor, ac postinodum alii multi notaverint imperfectam videri Paulinam sententiam, ob illam conjunctio¬ nem, et, quia non dixit Paulus, ita in omnes homines, sed, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit. Tertio probatur ex illis verbis : Per unum hominem. Nam si de imitatione ageretur, non dixisset Apostolus, per unum hominem, sed per unum Angelum peccatum intravit in mundum. Ille enim est primus qui pecca¬ vit, et eum imitantur, qui sunt ex parte il¬ lius, ut dicitur Sap. n. Praeterea illud per est particula causalis, ut patet ex toto isto cap. ubi saepissime ponitur per et semper signifi¬ cat veram causam, qualis causa non est is, quem solum per accidens, aut materialiter alii imitantur. Et quoniam qui peccant, non ideo peccant, ut imitentur Adamum, cum, (ut supra diximus) multi nihil audierint de Adamo, et qui de illo aliquid audierunt, non soleant de eo cogitare dum peccant, sequi¬ tur, ut non potuerit recte Apostolus dicere, per Adamum peccare exteros. Atque hoc quidem Erasmus vidit, et ideo mutavit illud per in propter , ut Apostolus di¬ cere videatur, propter Adamum, id est, oc¬ casione Adami peccatum in mundum introis¬ se. Sed id fecit Erasmus et contra codicum Latinorum etiam vetustissimorum auctorita¬ tem, in omnibus enim legitur per, et contra regulas Graeca: linguae, qua: id postulant, ut CAPUT III. 33’ particula, Sia, cum regit genitivum, signifi¬ cet, per, cum regit accusativum, significet, propter, quas regulas ipse etiam Erasmus ubique observare solet. Na*m c. 4. ad Roma¬ nos (ut non longe petamus exempla) inveni¬ tur, Sto!, cum accusativo in ultima periodo, quater, et semper vertit Erasmus, ut etiam cieteri interpretes, propter, cap. autem 5. invenitur, Sia, cum genitivo plusquam duo¬ decies, et semper verterunt tum Erasmus, tum cseteri , per, praeterquam hoc loco, ubi placuit Erasmo mutare, per, in propter. Et mirabile est, quod cum Apostolus in eadem periodo bis ponat, Sia, cum genitivo, dicens : St’!vo; avOpioTTGu i, auapxia it? xov zocaov £(g?,aOs, xai Sta x9j; aaapxia; 6 Oavaxo;, Erasmus primo loco reddiderit, propter, secundo, per. Per¬ spicuum igitur est, veram lectionem esse per unum hominem, ac per hoc Adamuin veram causam fuisse peccati, cum quo omnes na¬ scimur. Quarto probatur ex illis verbis : Et per peccatum mors. Docet enim Apostolus ita peccatum causam esse mortis , ut Adam causa fuit peccati, quod in mundum intra¬ vit. Sic enim ait : Per unum hominem pecca¬ tum in hunc mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors. Sed certe peccatum non est causa mortis, per imitationem, aut improprie, vel per accidens, et ex occasione, sed quia pec¬ catum generat mortem, ut S. Jacobus loqui¬ tur in epist. sua cap. 1. Igitur Adamus etiam causa peccati fuit, non per imitationem, vel improprie, aut per accidens et ex occasione. Sed quia peccator ipse effectus, peccatores filios genuit. Quinto probatur ex verbis sequentibus. Et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit. Nam verbum illud pertransiit indicat modum, quo peccatum, et mors in hunc mundum intra¬ verunt. Nimirum peccatum et mors, non in ipso Adamo constiterunt, sed cum ad filios transissent, non in ipsis quoque finem acce¬ perunt, sed per filios ad nepotes, per nepo¬ tes ad pronepotes, per illos ordine suo ad omnes posteros transierunt, ut eadem sit ra¬ tio propagationis naturae atque peccati. Quocirca Erasmus noluit hoc loco vertere « pertransiit » ut antiquus interpres fecerat, sed a pervasit»; quod verbum non ita expli¬ cat propagationem peccati, ut non possit etiam referri ad imitationem. Ceeterum, no¬ stra lectio non solum nititur auctoritate in¬ terpretis antiquissimi et) ab universa Eccle¬ sia approbati; sed etiam editione Syriaca, in qua pro greeeo verbo 8t?jX0£v, est verbum *13P, quod est hebraicum et proprie transire significat. Unde est etiam nsyii vadum seu transitus. Adde quod S. Augustin. serm. 4. de verbis Apostoli, prope finem, non solum agnoscit nostram lectionem, sed etiam ex¬ pendit vim verbi « pertransiit » et inde pro¬ bat propagationem peccati originalis. Sexto probatur ex illis verbis : In quo om¬ nes peccaverunt. Nam (ut S. Augustinus col¬ ligit lib. iv. contra duas epistolas Pelagiano- rumteap. 4.) necesse est illud, in quo, signi¬ ficare, in quo Adamo, vel in quo peccato, vel in qua morte. Non enim facta est mentio in superioribus verbis ejusdem sententia;, nisi horum trium ; et aliquid sine dubio an¬ tecedens referre debet pronomen, quo. Por¬ ro non potest recte exponi, in quo, id est, in quo peccato, quia peccatum in lingua graeca est generis fceminini, agapxia, et, in quo, grsecc io w est generis masculini. Nec potest accipi, in quo, in qua morte, tametsi mors graece sit generis masculini, Qavaxo,-, quoniam non peccant homines in morte, sed in peccato potius moriuntur : restat igitur, ut, in quo, significet, in quo Adamo, ut sit explicatio ejus, quod dictum erat, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit. Ideo enim per unum ho¬ minem peccatum in mundum intravit et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, quia in illo uno homines omnes peccaverunt. Quod si in illo uno ho¬ mine, Adamo videlicet, omnes peccaverunt, negari non potest originale peccatum pro¬ pagatione, non imitatione trahi. Non enim qui Adamum peccando imitantur, in illo pec¬ casse dici possunt, sed qui propterea pecca¬ tum habent, quia ex illo nascuntur, qui cum peccaret, omnium personam in se uno ge¬ rebat. Sed occurit Erasmus, ac docet, illud Grae¬ cum hf w vertendum fuisse, quatenus, vel, in quantum, sive eo quod : griece enim prae¬ positionem, in, non esse, ini, sed, iv, et ideo sic ipse vertit, et eodem modo vertunt hoc tempore omnes sectarii, qui non tam veri¬ tate, quam novitate gaudent. Caeterum, etiamsi non, in quo, sed, quate¬ nus, legeremus, non ideo tamen argumen¬ tum nostrum labefactaretur. Nam si mors in omnes homines pertransiit, quatenus omnes peccaverunt, sine dubio infantes etiam peccasse negari non poterit, cum eos quoque mortales esse, et saepe in ipsa infan- 338 L1BEH IV. tia mori videamus, at quod est peccatum infantium, si nullum est originale peccatum? An actuale peccatum in eis inveniri potent, de quibus Scriptura testatur, nihil eos egis¬ se boni, vel mali ? Sed non est opus ad haec descendere, cum lectio illa, in quo, verissi¬ ma sit, et nullo negotio ab adversariorum calumniis defendatur, si videlicet novitati ipsorum objiciamus consensum veterum, non solum Latinorum, sed etiam Graicorum, qui procul dubio melius noverant vim pro¬ positionis graecae, quam Erasinus aut Faber. Igitur Cbrysostomus, Theophylactus, QE- cumenius Graeci, disertis verbis explicant m quo Adamo. Simi iter exposuisse Hila¬ rium, testatur Augustinus lib. iv. contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, cap. 4. Eadem expositio est in commentario, qui tribuitur Ambrosio. Eademe est Haymonis, Anselmi, Thomae et aliorum. PorroS. Augustinus non solum hoc eodem modo constanter ubique semper exposuit, sed etiam in lib. vi. contra Julian. cap. 12. referi expositionem, quam nunc Erasmus et novatores sequuntur, fuisse a Juliano propositam, ut, m quo, significet, m quantum, vel, eo quod, et addit esse eam expli¬ cationem novam, distortam, falsam, et homi¬ nis mirabiliter impudentis, vel potius insani¬ entis. Neque verum est, quod Erasmus dicit, e in, non significare, in, nam in epist. ad Hebr. cap. ix. quodgraecehabetui ent 6pco&a<u, Era¬ smus ipse cum caeteris vertit, in cibis : et illud iiz\ vzxpoU, vertit in mortuis. Nec de¬ sunt alia testimonia, sed haec duo sufficiunt. Illud hoc loco addendum est, frustra ab Erasmo reprehendi S. Augustinum, quod illud, in quo , significare putaverit, in quo peccato ; cum tamen peccatum graece sit generis fceminini. Nam Augustinus lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remiss. cap. 10. cum forte textum Graecum non consuluisset, scripsit, illud, in quo, sive referatur ad Ada- mum, sive ad peccatum , evidens esse testi¬ monium pro peccato originali. Idem tamen (ut paulo ante diximus) in lib. iv. contra duas epistol. Pelag. cap. 4. disertis verbis monuit, in quo, non posse referri ad pecca¬ tum, cum, in quo, sit generis masculini, et peccatum apud Graecos generis foeminini. Septimo, probatur ex verbis sequentibus : Usque ad legem enim peccatum erat in mun¬ do. Peccatum aulemnon imputabatur, cum lex non esset : sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosem, etiam in eos, quinon peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis A das. Docet enim his verbis Apostolus, ante legem da¬ tam peccatum non fuisse cognitum, ac per hoc nec reputatum esse peccatum : tamen revera fuisse in mundo peccatum, non so¬ lum actuale, quod per legem cognosci coepit, sed etiam originale, quod colligi potest ex morte, quae regnavit in omnes etiam parvu¬ los, qui non peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae, id est, actu, ac pro¬ pria voluntate, ut peccavit Adam. Sunt au¬ tem hoc loco duae lectiones. Una est cum negatione, ut nos citavimus et exposuimus, et hanc sequuntur Chrysostomus et alii Graeci posteriores, et S. Augustinus in epist, 89. ad Hilarium. Altera est sine negatione : Regnavit mors ab Adam usque adMosen, etiam in eos, qui peccaveunt in similitudinem praeva¬ ricationis Adse, et hanc sequuntur Origenes, et commentarius, qui Ambrosio inscribitur, et juxta hanc lectionem sensus esset, regna¬ vit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosem, etiam in eos, qui solum peccaverunt in similitudi¬ nem praevaricationis Adae, hoc est, propter similitudinem, quam habent cum Adamo ob communicationem ejusdem peccati. Octavo, probatur ex illis verbis : « Qui est forma futuri. » Nam omnium consensu dicitur Adam forma futuri, id est, Christi, quia fuit illi similis in genere, non in specie. , Uterque enim in filios suos aliquid diffudit, sed dissimiliter quantum ad speciem, quia peccatum A damus, Christus justitiam. Porro Christus justitiam non imitatione, sed rege¬ neratione diffudit : igitur et Adam pecca¬ tum non imitatione, sed generatione trans¬ misit. Et sane (ut S. Augustinus admonet in lib. i. de peccatorum meritis et remiss. cap. 14.) Si B. Paulus de similitudine eorum loqueretur, qui exemplum peccandi, vel bene agendi cseteris praebuerunt, non con¬ ferret Adamum cum Christo, sed cum Abele. Nam quemadmodum primus fuit Adam, qui exemplo eseteros peccare docuit, sic primus fuit Abel, qui cseteris bene vivendo praeluxit, et quem omnes omnino imitari potuerunt. Christum enim, qui tot saeculis posterior Adamo fuit, quantum ad carnem, quomodo tam multi, qui eum praecesserunt, imitari potuissent ? Nono, probatur ex verbis illis : Judicium quidem ex uno in condemnationem, gratia au¬ tem ex multis delictis in justificationem. Nam ut idem Augustinus in eodem lib. i. de pec¬ catorum meritis et remiss. cap. 12. et 13. docet, si Adam non esset causa peccati, CifPUT IV. quod est in ejus posteris, nisi quia posteri illum imitantur, nulla ratio reddi posset, cur Apostolus diceret, judicium ex uno, gratia ex multis. Cur enim non judicium ex uno, gratia ex uno ; vel judicium ex multis, gra¬ tia ex multis ? Nam quemadmodum judicium Dei homines condemnat ob multa delicta, quae ex uno illo Adami delicto didicerunt, ita gratia Dei homines justificat a multis delictis, qua; ex illo uno Adami delicto didi¬ cerunt. Sicut enim inter delictum Adami et damnationem aliorum sunt media multa propria delicta, sic etaim inter delictum A- dami, et justificationem aliorum sunt media multa propria delicta. At si concedatur, Adamum causam fuisse peccati omnium posterorum generationem, causa illius diversitatis in promptu est. Proplerea siquidem judicium est ex uno in condemnationem, gratia vero ex multis de¬ lictis in justificationem, quod Adam unum tantum in nos delictum carnali generatione transmiserit, et ex eo tota massa generis hu¬ mani damnata sit; Christus vero non ab uno illo duntaxat, quod nascendo contraximus, sed ab omnibus aliis, qua; male vivendo ad¬ jecimus, spirituali nos regeneratione justifi¬ cet. Decimo probatur ex illis verbis : Sicut per tnobedientiam unius hominis peccatores consti¬ tuti sunt inulti. Ita per unius obedientiam ju¬ sti constituentur multi. Ilie enim non solum habemus comparationem Adami cum Chri¬ sto, de qua saepe jam locuti sumus, sed etiam unam unius Adami inobedientiam commu¬ nem fuisse multis, et ita communem, ut per illam peccatores vere constituantur. Quia vero non possunt peccatores alii per aliorum peccata constitui, sequitur ut inobedientia Adami, non ut in illo erat, sed ut ad poste¬ ros generatione transfunditur, omnes eos peccatores constituat, qui ex ipso nascun¬ tur. Accedat postremo definitio Concilii Mile- vitani, cap. 2. quae docet, locum Apostoli ad Itom. v : Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, ete (1). non aliter esse intelligendum, quam de peccato originali, quod generatione contrahitur. Quod autem Eramus dicit, Concilium fuisse particulare, ac propterea se decretis ejus minime teneri, superbe ac temere dictum nobis videtur, praesertim cum illud Concilium ab Aposto- 339 lica sede sit confirmatum, ut constat ex epi- pistola Innocenti! I. ad Concilium Milevita- num, quae epist. habetur in 1. tom. Conci¬ liorum, et inter epistolas S. Augustini, num. 93. Relatum quoque est hoc decretum Cone. Milevit. in corpus Juris Canonici, de conse¬ cratione dist. 4. can. Placuit. Et denique Concilium universale nostro hoc saeculo Tridenti celebratum sess. 5. idem decretum verbis iisdem renovavit, ut jam nulli, qui Catholicus haberi velit, de hujus loci Apo- stolici explicatione liceat dubitare.