Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 8: Objections from the Scriptures are dissolved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book 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).
It remains that we solve the arguments, which are drawn first from the Scriptures, then from the Fathers, last from reason. In the first place I shall bring forward the testimonies of the Scriptures which the Pelagians of old objected; then those which Zwingli afterwards added.
The first testimony from the old Testament was that of Ezechiel 18: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. This testimony, as Julian of old had brought it forward as his chief one in this cause, so also in our age Zwingli brought it forward, in the book On Baptism, in the digression on the sin of origin. St. Augustine answered, book 6 against Julian, chapter 12, that the words of Ezechiel are prophetic, and that by them is promised the benefit of the new Testament, by which through regeneration the paternal handwriting was to be blotted out, so that the sin of the old Adam should no longer harm those who had begun to pertain to the new Adam through Baptism. Which is written more evidently by Jeremias, chapter 31, in these words: “In those days they shall say no more: The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge. But every one shall die in his own iniquity: every man that shall eat the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Juda — not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it… and I will be their God, and they shall be my people… for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” But it is to be observed in this place that it can come to pass in two ways that the son bear not the iniquity of the father. In one way, if by a new generation he be transferred from that father to another; and in this way God promises through Jeremias that it will be in the new Testament that men, transferred by regeneration from Adam to Christ, shall not bear the iniquity of Adam. In the other way, if he do not imitate the iniquity of the father, nor be partaker of his sin; and in this way Ezechiel seems to say that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, as we expounded in the preceding chapter. For Ezechiel openly forbids the Jews themselves, in the name of God, to use that proverb, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge,” and renders the reason: because the ways of the Lord are equal, and all souls are his, etc. And according to this exposition it is ready at hand to answer the Pelagians that unregenerated sons bear not the iniquity of their father, but their own; for original sin, though it is from Adam, is nevertheless not Adam's, but ours. And so the same St. Augustine, who in this place was content to say that sons do not bear the iniquity of the father when they have been regenerated, had said in the same book 6 against Julian, chapter 4 [al. 12], that even before regeneration sons bear not the sins of others, but their own: “The sins of the parents,” says he, “are in a certain manner called others', and again in a certain manner are found also ours. Others' they are, namely, by the propriety of the action; and ours they are by the contagion of propagation. For if this were false, assuredly that heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam, from the day of their coming out of their mother's womb, would in no way be just.” Thus he.
The second testimony the Pelagians brought from those words, Romans 5: As by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, etc. For if men were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam not by imitation, but by propagation, the Apostle would say not “many,” but “all.” St. Augustine answers, in the same book 6 against Julian, chapter 12, that by “many” must be understood all who are born of Adam, who truly are many. For there can be some things which are all, and yet are not many — as the four Gospels are all, not many; there can also be many things which are not all — as they who believe in Christ are many, yet not all, because all men have not faith. The Apostle, then, spoke most properly in saying that many are made sinners through Adam, and many just through Christ: because all who are born of Adam are made sinners, and they are many, yet not simply all — since Eve is a human being, and yet was not made unjust through Adam; and Christ also is a man, and yet is neither of Adam nor a sinner; and similarly all who are born again in Christ are made just, and these are many, but not simply all, because not all are born again in Christ. Further, Scripture has said both “many” and “all.” For it says: “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 as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.” When it says “all,” it signifies that there is no one of Adam who is not a sinner, no one of Christ who is not just; and similarly, that there is no sinner who is not of Adam, no just man who is not of Christ. When it says “many,” it signifies that those whom it called all are not simply all, but yet are absolutely and simply many. A like place is in Genesis, chapter 17: I have made thee a father of many nations; and chapter 22: In thy seed shall all the nations be blessed — where we see that those who are promised to Abraham for sons are now called many, now all; because they are all within a certain kind, and yet simply not all, but many. Someone will say: if all who are born of Adam contract original sin, why does the Apostle write in the same chapter that the grace of God through Christ has abounded unto more than sin abounded through Adam? I answer that that word does not signify a comparison in that place, but is equivalent to the word “many.” For in the Greek text it is not “more,” but “many.” And so the sense is: the grace of God through Christ was not restricted to one or two, but abounded unto many, as sin infected not only Adam and his sons, but very many others. And this — to abound unto many — agrees much more with grace than with sin, since grace is more powerful and more efficacious.
The third testimony they took from the same place of the Apostle: By one man sin entered into the world. For if sin had entered into the world by generation, the Apostle would say not “by one man,” but “by two men”; for generation requires two. The author of the Hypognosticon answers, book 2, that it was said “by one man” because man and wife, joined by matrimony, are not two, but one flesh, as the Lord says, Matthew 19. The same author adds that Scripture, to satisfy the curious Pelagians, has said both “by one man” and “by one woman.” For Romans 5 says: By one man; Ecclesiasticus 25 says: From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. We can adjoin a third solution: that the Apostle said “by one man” — that is, Adam — because the primary cause of original sin was not Eve, but Adam. Both because the sin of Adam, not of Eve, is transmitted to posterity; and because the man is the active cause of generation, the woman the passive. Wherefore if, Eve sinning, Adam had remained in innocence, their sons would not have original sin; and contrariwise they would have it if, Eve remaining in innocence, Adam alone had sinned.
The fourth testimony they took from those words of the Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 5: For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil. St. Augustine answers, book 6 against Julian, chapter 4 [al. 15], that little ones either are to be manifested before the tribunal of Christ, or are not to be manifested. If not to be manifested — because, namely, the Apostle speaks of adults only — this sentence pertains nothing to little ones, and thereby it is not proved by this testimony that there is no original sin in little ones. If to be manifested: unregenerated little ones will carry back what they did through others — that is, sin — as regenerated little ones will carry back what they did through others — that is, the merit of faith. For as it profits little ones, when they are baptized, that they believe through others, and therefore they are numbered by Christ among the faithful and the just; so also it is no wonder if it harm them that they lost faith and justice through another, and therefore are numbered by Christ among the unfaithful and unjust, and pertain to the flock of those of whom the precursor of the Lord says: He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him, John 3.
The fifth testimony Zwingli adduces in the book On Baptism, from chapters 3 and 4 to the Romans, in these words: “Now we shall bring forward the testimonies of Scripture which we promised. Paul, 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 overturns 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.” I answer that Zwingli, out of two testimonies of Scripture, has woven not a syllogism, but a paralogism. For from that testimony — By the law is the knowledge of sin, Romans 3 — he deduced that where there is no knowledge of the law, there is no transgression. Which consequence he did not rightly prove from that other testimony — Where there is no law, neither is there transgression, Romans 4. For the Apostle does not say, “where there is no knowledge of the law, neither is there transgression” — which is Zwingli's inference — but, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” And indeed what the Apostle says is most true; for transgression cannot be feigned unless there be a law which by transgressing is violated. But what Zwingli says is false, since it often happens that some are ignorant of the law, and yet truly transgress it. Whence there are the sins which are called sins of ignorance — which can be lethal sins if the ignorance be voluntary, such as is theirs of whom it is said: He would not understand that he might do well. And so blessed Paul, Romans 2, says: Whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law. But to be without the law, Zwingli himself being witness in the Declaration on the Sin of Origin, is to be ignorant of the law; for otherwise, as he himself says, no one is without the law. There are, then, some who are ignorant of the law, and yet sin, and perish; and thereby it is false, what he says, that where there is no knowledge of the law, there is neither transgression nor damnation. Again, Zwingli assumed another proposition which he did not prove — namely, that where there is no transgression, there can be no damnation. And indeed, if Zwingli were speaking of transgression in general, whether it be one's own or common, that proposition could be admitted — though he has confirmed it by no argument — but from it he would effect nothing against original sin. For little ones, who lack the use of reason, have indeed no proper transgression of their own for which they should be damned; but they have a certain transgression common to the whole human race, of which the Apostle speaks when he says: In whom all have sinned, Romans 5 — on account of which the whole race is justly condemned. But because Zwingli without doubt speaks of proper transgression — that is, that which is committed by one's own will — therefore we contend that that proposition of his — where there is no transgression, there can be no damnation — is false and contrary to the Scriptures. For the same Apostle who in Romans 9 says that infants have done nothing of good, nothing of evil, and thereby have transgressed no law by their own will, the same writes to the Ephesians, chapter 2, that all are by nature children of wrath; and to the Romans, chapter 5: By the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation. Finally, Zwingli assumes the very thing which is chiefly in question — namely, that only transgression, which is actual sin, is properly sin, which can damn a man. For this all Catholics deny, and prove the contrary most openly by many testimonies of the Scriptures. He indeed proved from the Scriptures that sin is known through the law, and that where there is no law there is no transgression — which two things are beyond controversy; but that where there is no transgression there is no damnation — the one thing he had to prove — he proved by no reasoning, but assumed as certain: which fault the dialecticians call begging the principle, than which nothing more absurd is committed in disputation.
The sixth testimony the same Zwingli seeks, in the same book, from those words of the Apostle, Romans 7: Without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived. “When,” says Zwingli, “shall we say that the Apostle lived without the law? Surely when he was still a boy, and tender in age; for otherwise no one can be without the law.” But the same Zwingli forms the argument from this place more clearly in the Declaration on the Sin of Origin, near the end. For there he proves that little ones, even unbaptized, are in the state of innocence, by this argument: “So long as little ones are not capable of the law, we have unhesitatingly asserted of ours that they are in the state of innocence, resting on the authority of Paul, Romans 4: For where there is no law, neither is there transgression. But the tender and inexperienced, unversed in laws, are no less without the law than Paul; therefore they do not transgress, and hence neither are they damned. Now Paul declares that he once lived without the law, Romans 7; and this is to be understood of no part of his age but infancy or boyhood. Sin, then, was at that time dead to him; but when the law lived, he testifies that he then was dead. In the same way we, so long as by age we are unversed in the law, do not ourselves sin; but when the light of the law has shone forth, we are then rendered guilty.” Thus he.
I answer that this argument concludes nothing, for three causes. First: that saying — Without the law sin was dead — does not signify that sin simply was not, but that it was not known, nor reckoned as sin, though in very truth it was sin. For so the same Paul teaches, Romans 5: For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. Where that “was not imputed” signifies that sin was not held for sin by men, until the law of Moses, by forbidding sin, openly manifested it. For that sin was imputed by God is plain from the punishment of sin, which is death, common to the whole human race. And so in little ones living without the law (as Zwingli teaches), sin is dead — that is, hidden and lying concealed — not, however, altogether none; and thereby little ones are not in the state of innocence, but in the state of sin, and guilty of damnation, so long as they are not born again in Christ through Baptism. Next, that saying — And I lived some time without the law — we are not compelled to understand (as Zwingli would) of little ones and of the law of nature. For that interpretation of his was Origen's, in the commentary on this place; but it has been refuted with the best arguments by St. John Chrysostom in his commentary on the same place. Now the exposition more common among the holy Fathers is that the Apostle speaks in the person of human nature, such as it was before the law of Moses; and the sentence of this place is this: Sin without the law of Moses was dead, because it was not known as an offense of God, nor as bringing the guilt of death. But men lived without the law — of Moses, namely — some time; and therefore, in their eyes blinded by ignorance, sin was dead; but when the law came, sin revived, because it began to be known. See the commentaries of Chrysostom and Theophylact, and also of Ambrose (or whoever was that author), of Haymo, Anselm, Thomas, and others on this place; finally also Augustine, book 1 to Simplician, question 1, and book of 83 Questions, question 66. Lastly, if we conceded that this testimony properly pertains to little ones, it would not thereby be effected that little ones not yet baptized are in the state of innocence, but only that they lack actual sin, which is committed by one's own will. For they who are without the law — that is, as Zwingli explains, know not the law, nor are capable of knowing it — cannot by their own action transgress the law. But our question is whether, besides actual sin, there be not also some other sin, truly and properly so called, which is not committed by one's own action, but is drawn from the parents through generation. To which question the place of the Apostle adduced by Zwingli pertains nothing at all.
The seventh testimony is adduced by the same Zwingli, both in the book On Baptism and in the Declaration on the Sin of Origin, from chapter 5 to the Romans, where Paul speaks thus: Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. For from this place Zwingli gathers that death indeed is drawn from the first parent, but not sin. But the response is easy. For the Apostle (as we said above) wished to demonstrate that before the law of Moses there was sin in the world, and all men were sinners, though sin was not so perspicuously known as an offense of God. And this he proves from death, which is the punishment of sin, and reigns in all, and reigned even at that time in which sin was not perspicuously known — that is, from Adam unto Moses. Wherefore the Apostle does not say that death reigned over those who in no way sinned (for if he said this, he would neither prove what he intended, and he would contradict those words of his: death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned); but he says that death reigned over those who did not sin after the similitude of the transgression of Adam — that is, who did not sin by their own action against a law plainly seen and known, as Adam sinned. And so from the Apostolic words we have that all men die, and have sin, or have had it, although not all have sinned with actual sin, as Adam sinned.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII. Diluuntur objectiones ex Scripturis. Superest ut argumenta solvamus , quie primum a Scripturis, deinde a Patribus, postremo a ratione ducuntur. Primo loco alleram testimonia Scripturarum, quae olim Pelagiani objiciebant : deinde qua; Zwin¬ glius postea adjecit. Primum testimonium ex Testamento veteri, erat illud Ezech. xvm : Filius non portabit iniquitatem Patris (1). Hoc testimonium, ut potissimum in hac causa px-otulerat olim Julianus, protulit etiam nostro saeculo Zwinglius in lib. de Baptismo, in digressione de peccato originis. Respondit S. August. lib. vi. in Julianum, cap. 42. verba Ezechielis esse prophetica, iisque promitti beneficium Testamenti novi, quo per regenerationem delendum erat chy- rogruphum paternum, ut non amplius noce¬ ret peccatum veteris Adami, iis, qui ad no¬ vum Adamum per Baptismum pertinere coe¬ pissent. 0u°d evidentius scribitur a Hiere- mia, c. 31. his verbis : « In diebus illis non dicent, Patres manducaverunt uvam acer¬ bam, et dentes filiorum obstupuerunt. Sed unusquisque in suo peccato morietur. Omnis homo, qui comederit uvam acerbam obstu¬ pescent dentes ejus. Ecce dies venient, dicit Dominus, et feriam domui Juda foedus no¬ vum, non secundum pactum quod pepigi cum patribus vestris in die, qua apprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos de terra .digypti ; pactum quod irritum fecerunt, et ego dominatus sum eorum, dicit Dominus. Sed hoc erit pactum, quod feriam cum do¬ mo Israel : Post dies illos, dicit Dominus, dabo legem meam in visceribus eorum, scri¬ bam eam, et ero eis in Deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in populum, quia propitiabor iniquitati eorum , et peccati eorum non memorabor amplius. » x Sed observandum est hoc loco, duobus modis posse fieri, ut filius non portet iniqui¬ tatem patris. Uno modo si per novam gene¬ rationem transferatur ab illo patre ad alium; et hoc modo promittit Deus per Hieremiam futurum in Testamento novo, ut homines* per regenerationem translati ab Adamo ad Christum, non portent iniquitatem Adami. Altero modo, si non imitetur iniquitatem pa¬ tris nec sit particeps peccati illius ; et hoc modo videtur Ezechiel dicere, filium non portaturum iniquitatem patris, ut exposui¬ mus capite superiore. Ezechiel enim aperte prohibet ipsis Judaeis nomine Dei, ne utan¬ tur eo proverbio : « Patres comederunt uvas acerbas, et dentes filiorum obstupescunt. » Et rationem reddit : « quia equae sunt viae Domini, et omnes anima; ejus sunt etc. » Et juxta hanc expositionem promptum est Pela- gianis respondere, filios non regeneratos non portare iniquitatem patris, sed suam ; peccatum enim originale, tametsi ab Adamo est, non tamen Adami, sed nostrum est. Itaque idem S. Augustinus, qui hoc loco contentus fuit dicere, filios non portare ini¬ quitatem patris, quando regenerati sunt; in eodem lib. vi. in Julian. cap. -4. dixerat, (1) Ezech. XVIII, 20. CAPUT VIII. etiam ante regenerationem filios non portare aliena peccata, sed propria : « Parentum, inquit , peccata modo quodam dicuntur aliena , et rursus modo quodam repe- riuntur et nostra. Aliena quippe proprie¬ tate sunt actionis , et nostra sunt con¬ tagione propaginis. Quod si falsum esset, profecto grave jugum super filios Adam a •die exitus de ventre matris eorum, nullo mo¬ do justum esset. » Haec ille. Secundum testimonium afferebant Pela¬ giam ex illis verbis Roman. v : Sicut per unius hominis inobedientiam peccatores con¬ stituti sunt multi e tc. (i). Si enim non imita¬ tione, sed propagatione peccatores consti¬ tuerentur homines ob inobedientiam Adami, non diceret Apostolus, multi, sed omnes. Respondet S. Augustinus in eodem lib. vi. in Julian. cap. 12. per multos intelligi debe¬ re omnes, qui nascuntur ex Adamo, qui vere sunt multi. Possunt enim aliqua esse omnia, qua} tamen non sint multa, ut Evangelia quatuor, sunt omnia non multa. Possunt etiam esse multa, qua} non sint omnia, ut credentes in Christum multi sunt, non ta¬ men omnes, quia non omnium est fides Apostolus igitur valde proprie dixit, mul¬ tos constitui per Adamum peccatores , et multos justos per Christum, quia omnes, qui nascuntur ex Adamo, constituuntur pecca¬ tores, et illi sunt multi, non tamen omnes simpliciter, cum Eva sit homo, et tamen non sit per Adamum injusta constituta, et Christus etiam sit homo, et tamen nec sit ex Adamo, nec peccator : et similiter omnes, qui renascuntur in Christo, constituuntur justi, et hi sunt multi, sed non omnes sim¬ pliciter , quia non omnes renascuntur in Christo. Porro Scriptura utrumque dixit, et mul¬ tos, et omnes. Ait enim : « Sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnatio¬ nem, sic et per unius justitiam in omnes ho¬ mines in justificationem vitae : sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita et per unius obedi- tionem justi constituentur multi. » Cum di¬ cit, omnes, significat, neminem esse ex Ada¬ mo, qui non sit peccator, neminem ex Chri¬ sto, qui non sit justus : et similiter neminem esse peccatorem, qui non sit ex Adamo, ne¬ minem esse justum, qui non sit ex Christo. Cum dicit ( multos ) significat illos, quos dixit 349 omnes, non esse omnes simpliciter, sed ta¬ men absolute, et simpliciter multos. Similis locus est in cap. xvir. Gen.: Patrem multarum gentium posui te. Et cap. xxii : In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes (2). Ubi videmus eos, qui promittuntur Abrahae in filios, nunc dici multos, nunc omnes, quia omnes sunt in quodam genere, et tamen simpliciter non omnes, sed multi. Dicet aliquis, si omnes, qui nascuntur ex Adamo, contrahunt originale peccatum, cur Apostolus in eodem cap. scribit : Gratiam Dei per Christum abundasse in plures, quam peccatum abundaverit per Adamum ? Re¬ spondeo, vocem illam (plures) non significare comparationem eo loco, sed aequivalere voci (multos). Nam in textu Graeco non est irXeto- va<, sed iroXXti;. Itaque sensus est, Gratiam Dei per Christum non fuisse restrictam ad unum, vel duos, sed abundasse in plures, sic¬ ut peccatum non solum infecit Adamum et filios, sed alios plurimos. Atque hoc quod est abundare in plures, multo magis convenit gratiae, quam peccato, cum gratia sit poten- tior et efficaci or. Tertium testimonium sumebant ex eodem loco Apostoli : Per unum hominem peccatum in mundum intravit. Nam si peccatum intras- set in mundum per generationem, non dice¬ ret Apostolus, per unum hominem, sed per duos homines. Generatio enim duos requirit. Respondet auctor Hypognostici lib. ii. di¬ ctum esse, Per unum hominem , quia vir et mulier conjuncti per matrimonium, non sunt duo, sed una caro, ut Dominus dicit Matth. xix. Addit idem auctor, Scripturam, ut satis¬ faceret curiosis Pelagianis, utrumque dixisse per unum et per unam. Nam Rom. v. ait : Per unum hominem ; Eccles. xxv. ait : A muliere initium factum est peccati ; et per il¬ lam omnes morimur (3). Possumus adjungere tertiam solutionem, Apostolum dixisse : Per unum hominem, id est, Adamum, quia pri¬ maria causa peccati originalis , non Eva, sed Adam fuit. Tum quia peccatum Adami, non Evai traducitur in posteros. Tum quia vir causa est activa generationis, mulier pas¬ siva. Quare si Ileva peccante, Adam in inno¬ centia permansisset, non haberent ipsorum filii originale peccatum, et contra haberent illud, si Eva in innocentia permanente so¬ lus Adam pcccasset. Quartum testimonium aepipiebant ex ver- (1) Rom. V, 49. - (2) Gen. XVII, 5; XXII, 18. - (3) Rom. V, 12; Eccl. XXV, 33. UBER IV, ;5;hj bis illis Apostoli Pauli II ad Cor. v : Omnes nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque propria corporis , sicut gessit, sive bonum, sive malum (1). Respondet S. August. lib. vi. in Julian. c. 4. par¬ vulos vel manifestandos esse ante Christi tribunal , vel non manifestandos ; si non manifestandos , quia videlicet de adultis tantum loquatur Apostolus , nihil hanc sententiam ad parvulos pertinere, ac per hoc non probari hoc testimonio non esse in parvulis originale peccatum : si manife¬ standos, parvulos non regeneratos reporta¬ turos quod gesserunt per alios, id est pec¬ catum, sicut reportabunt parvuli regenerati, quod gesserunt per alios, id est, meritum fi¬ dei. Sicut enim prodest parvulis, dum ba¬ ptizantur, quod per alios credunt, et ideo inter fideles, et justos numerantur a Christo. Sic etiam mirum non est si eis noceat, quod fidem et justitiam amiserunt per alium, et ideo inter infideles et injustos numerantur a Christo, atque ad eorum gregem pertinent, de quibus praecursor Domini dicit : Qui non credit in filium, non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum, Joan. m (2). Quintum testimonium adducit Zwinglius in lib. de Baptismo, excap. 3. et 4. ad Rom. his verbis : « Nunc Scripturae testimonia, quae pollitici sumus, proferemus. Paulus ad Roma. 3. peccati cognitionem per legem oboriri dicit. Ubi ergo 1 gis cognitio nulla est, ibi nec peccati cognitio esse potest. Ubi vero cognitio peccati non est, ibi nec praeva¬ ricatio est, adeoque nec damnatio quoque ibidem esse potest. Idem enim hoc Paulus testatur ad Rom. 4. dicens. Siquidem ubi non est lex, ibi nec transgressio est. Jam er¬ go testimoniorum istorum vim, et potentiam considera, quse tanta est, ut omnia omnium Theologorum de originali peccato commenta penitus subvertat. Morbus enim hic nobis damnationem afferre nequit , quse tum de¬ mum subsequitur, cum legem oculis nostris expositam conspicati, adhuc tamen morbo hoc, et affectu corruptae naturse impulsi, le¬ gem transgredimur. » Respondeo, Zwinglium ex duobus Scri- pturse testimoniis non syllogismum, sed pa- ralogismum texuisse. Nam ex illo testimonio : Per legem cognitio peccati, ad Rom. m (3), deduxit, ubi nulla est cognitio legis, nullam esse praevaricationem. Quam consecutionem non recte probavit ex illo alio testimonio : Ubi lex non est, nec praevaricatio est, ad Rom. iv. Non enim Apostolus ait, ubi legis cogni¬ tio non est, nec praevaricatio est; quae reci Zwinglii collectio ; sed: Ubi lex non est, nen praevaricatio est. Et quidem quod Apostolus ait, verissimum est, non enim potest fingi praevaricatio, nisi sit lex, quae praevaricando violetur. Quod autem Zwinglius ait, falsum est, cum saepe fiat, ut aliqui legem ignorent, et tamen eam vere praevaricentur. Unde 'sunt peccata , quae dicuntur ignorantiae , quae peccata lethalia esse possunt si igno¬ rantia sit voluntaria, qualis est eorum, de quibus dicitur : Noluit intelligere, ut bene ageret. Itaque B. Paulus ad Roman. n. ait : Qui sine lege peccavenmt, sine lege peribunt (4). Esse autem sine lege, teste ipso Zwinglio in declaratione dei peccato originis, est legem ignorare. Nam alioqui, ut ipse dicit, nemo est sine lege. Sunt igitur aliqui, qui legem igno¬ rant, et tamen peccant, et pereunt, ac per hoc falsum est, quod ipse ait, ubi legis co¬ gnitio non est, nec praevaricatio aut dam¬ natio est. Rursus aliam propositionem Zwinglius as¬ sumpsit, quam non probavit, illam videlicet, ubi non est praevaricatio, ibi nec damnatio esse potest. Et quidem si de praevaricatione in universum, sive ea propria, sive commu¬ nis sit, Zwinglius loqueretur, admitti posset ea propositio, quamvis eam ipse nullo argu¬ mento comprobaverit, sed ex ea nihil effi¬ ceret contra originale peccatum. Parvuli enim, qui usu rationis carent, non habent quidem praevaricationem propriam, ob quam damnentur ; sed habent communem quam¬ dam toti humafio generi, de qua loquitur Apostolus, cum ait : In quo omnes peccaverunt, ad Rom. v. (1) ob quam universum jure dam¬ natum est. Caeterum, quia sine dubio Zwinglius de propria pra*varicatione loquitur, id est, quae propria voluntate committitur, ideo illam ejus propositionem : Ubi non est praevaricatio, ibi nec damnatio esse potest, falsam esse con¬ tendimus , et Scripturis contrariam. Nam idem Apostolus, qui ad Roman. ix. dicit, in¬ fantes nihil boni, nihil mali fecisse, ac per hoc nullam legem propria voluntate praeva¬ ricatos esse, idem ad Ephes. ii. scribit: Om¬ nes esse natura flios irae; et ad Roman. v : (1) II Corin. V, 10. — (2) Joan. III, 36. — (3) Rom. II. 20. — (4) Rom. II. 12. — (5) Rom. V, 12. CAPUT Vlllf 3ul Unius delicto in omnes homines in condemna¬ tionem (1). Denique Zwinglius illud assumit, quod po¬ tissimum in quaestione versatur, solam vide¬ licet praevaricationem, quae est actuale pec-i catum, esse proprie peccatum, quod homi¬ nem damnare potest. Id enim Catholici om¬ nes negant, et contrarium testimoniis multis Scripturarum apertissime probant. Ipse vero probavit quidem ex Scripturis, per legem cognosci peccatum, et ubi lex non est, non esse praevaricationem : quae duo extra con¬ troversiam sunt ; sed, ubi non est praevari¬ catio, non esse damnationem, quod unum ei probandum fuerat, nulla ratione probavit, sed assumpsit ut certum, quod vitium dia¬ lectici vocant, petere principium, quo nihil absurdius in disputatione committitur. Sextum testimonium petit idem Zwinglius in eodem libro ex illis Apostoli verbis ad Rom. vil '.Absque lege peccatum erat mortuum , ergo autem vivebam sine lege aliquando. Porro veniente mandato peccatum revixit (2). « Quando, inquit Zwinglius, sine lege vi¬ xisse dicemus Apostolum ? nempe cum puer adhuc esset, et aetate tener. Alioquin enim sine lege nemo esse potest. » Sed clarius ex hoc loco argumentum format idem Zwinglius in declaratione de peccato originis, prope fi¬ nem. Ibi enim probat, parvulos, et non ba- ptizatos, esse in statu innocentiae, hoc argu¬ mento : «; Quamdiu, inquit, parvuli legis ca¬ paces non sunt, in stfatu esse innocentiae, nos incunctanter de nostris asseruimus, fulti au¬ ctoritate Pauli ad Roman. iv. Ubi enim non est lex, ibi nec praevaricatio. Sunt autem te¬ neri inexperti, legumque rudes, non minus sine lege, quam Paulus : ergo non transgre¬ diuntur, proindeque nec damnantur. Per¬ hibet autem Paulus, se aliquando sine lege vixisse, ad Roman. vn. id autem de nulla aeta¬ tis ejus parte, quam infantia, puefitiave in- telligendum est. Peccatum ergo tum ei mor¬ tuum fuerit, at ubi lex vixerit, jam se mor¬ tuum esse testatur. Eodem modo nos, quam¬ diu sumus per aetatem rudes legis, non pec¬ camus ipsi : ubi vero lux legis affulsit, jam rei reddimur. » Haec ille. Respondeo, hoc argumentum nihil conclu¬ dere propter tres causas. Primum enim illud : Absque legk peccatum mortuum erat , non sig¬ nificat peccatum simpliciter non fuisse, sed non fuisse cognitum, nec reputatum pro pec- t !) Eph. II, 3; Rom. V, 18. - (2) Rom. VII, 8. - cato , quamvis revera peccatum esset. Sic enim idem Paulus docet ad Rom. v: Usque ad legem enim peccatum erat in mundo : Pec * catum autem non imputabatur, cum lex non esset (3). Ubi illud : Non imputabatur , signi¬ ficat peccatum non fuisse ab hominibus pro peccato habitum, donec lex Mosis peccatum prohibendo, ipsum aperte manifestavit. Quod enim peccatum a Deo imputatum fuerit, perspicuum est ex poena peccati, qua) est mors, toti generi humano communis. Itaque in parvulis sine lege (ut Zwinglius docet) vi¬ ventibus, peccatum est mortuum, id fcst, oc¬ cultum et latens, non autem nullum omnino, ac per hoc non sunt parvuli in statu inno¬ centiae, sed in statu peccati et damnationis rei, quamdiu per Baptismum non renascuntur injChristo. Deinde illud : Ego autem vivebam sine lege aliquando, non cogimur intelligere (ut vult Zwinglius de parvulis, et de lege naturae). Nam ista ejus interpretatio fuit Origenis in commentario hujus loci. Sed refutata est opti¬ mis argumentis a S. Joanne Chrysostomo in comment. ejus odem loci. Est autem ex¬ positio communior sanctis Patribus, quod Apostolus loquatur in persona naturae hu¬ manae, qualis erat ante legem Mosis, et sen¬ tentia hujus loci haec sit : Peccatum absque lege Mosis mortuum erat, quia non cogno¬ scebatur ut offensa Dei, nec ut reatum mortis adducens. Homines autem vivebant sine lege Mosis videlicet, aliquando, et ideo in oculis eorum ignorantia excaecatis, peccatum mor¬ tuum erat, sed ubi lex advenit, peccatum re¬ vixit, quia cognosci coepit. Vide comment. Chrysosfomi et Theojihylacti, necnon Am¬ brosii (sive quicumque is fuit auctor), Hay- monis, Anselmi, Thomae, et aliorum in hunc locum. Denique etiam Augustinum lib. i. ad Simplicianum, q. 1. et lib. lxxxiii. q. 66. Postremo si concederemus hoc testimo¬ nium proprie ad parvulos pertinere , non propterea efficeretur, parvulos nondum ba- ptizatos esse in statu inneentiae, sed solum carere eos peccato actuali, quod propria vo¬ luntate committitur. Qui enim sine lege sunt id est, ut Zwinglius explicat, legem non norunt neque ejus noscendae capaces sunt, non pos¬ sunt actione propria legem praevaricari. At quaestio nostra est, an praeter actuale pecca¬ tum non sit etiam aliquod aliud vere ac pro¬ prie dictum peccatum, quod non actione (3) Rom. V, 13. 332 LIBER IY. propria committatur, sed a parentibus per generationem trahatur. Ad quam quaestio¬ nem nihil omnino pertinet locus Apostoli a Zwinglio adductus. Septimum testimonium adducitur ab eo¬ dem Zwinglio. tum in lib. de Baptismo, tum ia declaratione de peccato originis ex. cap, V. adRom. ubi sic Paulus loquitur : Regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosem, in eos quoque qui non peccaverunt in similitudinem prae¬ varicationis Adam (i). Nam ex hoc loco Zwinglius colligit, mortem quidem ex primo parente trahi, non autem peccatum. Sed fa¬ cilis est responsio. Nam Apostolus (ut supra diximus) demonstrare voluit , ante legem Mosis, fuisse in mundo peccatum, et omnes homines fuisse peccatores, tametsi peccatum non ita perspicue cognosceretur, ut offensa Dei. Id vero probat ex morte, quae est poena peccati, et in omnibus regnat, et regnavit etiam illo tempore, quo peccatum non pers¬ picue cognoscebatur, id est, ab Adam usque ad Mosem. Quare non dicit Apostolus, mortem reg¬ nasse in eos, qui nullo modo peccaverunt (si enim hoc diceret, neque probaret quod volebat, et verbis illis suis repugnaret : mors in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt), sed dicit, mortem regnasse in illos, qui non peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adam, id est, qui non pec¬ caverunt propria actione contra legem plane perspectam et cognitam , quemadmodum peccavit Adam. Itaque ex verbis Apostolicis habemus, omnes homines mori, et peccatum habere, vel habuisse, quamvis non omnes peccaverint actuali peccato , ut peccavit Adam.