Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 9: Testimonies of the Fathers are explained which in appearance seem to favor the Pelagians
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).
Of the Fathers there are certain few who could be adduced for the opinion of the Pelagians: namely, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, Arnobius, St. John Chrysostom, and Theodoret.
Clement, book 3 of the Stromata, near the end, says thus: “Let them tell us, then, where the newborn infant committed fornication, or how he fell under the execration of Adam, who has wrought nothing.” But it is not sufficiently agreed whose these words are — Clement's own, or the heretics' with whom Clement disputes in that Stromateus. And it is probable that in those words is contained the objection of Julius Cassianus and of others, who taught that generation is evil, and for that cause condemned marriage. For they, bringing forward the testimony of holy Job — No one is clean from filth, not even an infant of one day — gathered thence that infants are born unclean and sinners; and since it is certain that infants are not polluted by any action of their own, seeing they can neither fornicate nor do anything of that kind, they concluded that generation is evil, since from it men are procreated unclean. For thus Clement straightway subjoins: “It remains, then, for them (as it seems), consequently, to say that generation is evil — not only that which is of the body, but also that which is of the soul.” And so those heretics did not deny the sin of origin, but rather asserted it, and from that assertion endeavored to build up their own error.
St. Ambrose is adduced by Michael Servetus (Sixtus of Siena being witness, book 6 of the Holy Library, annotation 236) against original sin, on account of those words which are had in the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans: “Death is the dissolution of the body, when the soul is separated from the body. There is also another death, which is called the second, in gehenna — which we do not suffer by the sin of Adam, but by its occasion acquire by our own sins; from which the good are immune, save only that they were in the lower region — but the upper one, as it were in a free place, because they could not ascend to heaven.” But the response is easy. For neither are those commentaries judged to be Ambrose's, nor did the author of those commentaries write anything against the doctrine of the Church about the sin of origin; rather, as we showed in chapter 5, he most openly confirmed it. And in the words cited a little before, that author teaches nothing else than that the punishment owed to original sin is not the gehenna of fire — that is, the punishment of sense, as the more recent theologians speak — but the lack of eternal beatitude, which is wont to be called the punishment of loss; and they who sustain that punishment do indeed dwell in the lower world, but in a certain part of that place higher and loftier than that the flame of gehenna can reach it. And that this is the opinion of that author can be understood from his words; for after he had said that on account of original sin men, otherwise good, were in the lower world, and could not ascend to heaven, he subjoined thus: “For they were held by the sentence given in Adam, which handwriting was blotted out in the decree by the death of Christ. Now the sentence of the decree was that the body of the one man should be dissolved upon the earth, but the soul, detained by the chains of the lower world, should suffer its banishments.” And below: “By the paternal sin, by the sentence of God, he was in the lower regions; the grace of God abounded in the descent of the Savior, giving pardon to all, they being lifted up with triumph into heaven.”
Now Arnobius can be adduced in the third place, who in the commentary on the fiftieth Psalm speaks thus: “David did not say, with iniquities or with sins did my mother bear me, but, in iniquities was I conceived, and in sins did my mother bear me. For by saying that his mother bore him in her iniquities, he marked that she brought him forth in the sins of the world; because every sin is conceived in the heart and consummated by the mouth. But this one who is born has the sentence of Adam; his own sin, however, he has not.” But this author, whoever he be, is certainly not that Arnobius, the teacher of Lactantius, who wrote the seven books against the Gentiles, but someone much more recent, as some before us have observed. And this author seems not to have denied that little ones have a sin which they have contracted from Adam, but that they have a sin which they have committed by their own will. For he says that little ones have the sentence of Adam — and thereby also the fault of Adam communicated to them by generation. For the sentence would not be just unless the fault preceded; and therefore, when he had said, “But this one who is born has the sentence of Adam,” he did not adjoin, “but sin he has not,” but, “his own sin he has not” — which relative, “his own,” must be referred to actual sin, of which he had said above that sin is conceived in the heart and consummated by the mouth.
In the fourth place is adduced St. John Chrysostom, who not only of old to Julian, the chief sectary of Pelagius, but also in our age to the new Pelagians, has seemed to have denied original sin. Now these are the testimonies which are wont to be brought forward from Chrysostom. The first, homily 10 on the epistle to the Romans: “What means” (says Chrysostom) “'in whom all have sinned'? That, he having fallen, even they who did not eat of the tree were all, from that time, made mortal.” By which words he seems to say that only the mortality of the first man, and not his disobedience by which he tasted the forbidden fruit, is communicated to posterity. Which he also writes more openly a little below, in these words: “What was said seems to hold no small question — namely, that many came to be sinners by the disobedience of one. For that, he sinning and being made mortal, they also who sprang from him should be such, is nothing absurd. But that from his disobedience another should come to be a sinner — what congruence and consequence, I beseech you, has this? What, then, does this word 'sinners' signify in this place? To me it seems to signify just as much as 'liable to punishment, and guilty of death' — that, Adam being dead, all were made mortal.” The second testimony is had in homily 17 on the first epistle to the Corinthians: “What then shall I do? — on account of him, namely Adam, do I perish? By no means on account of him. For neither hast thou remained without sin; even if not the same sin, yet thou hast committed another.” The third testimony, homily 39 on the same epistle: “What then, tell me — did all die in Adam by the death of sin? How then was Noe a just man in his generation? how Abraham? how Job? how, finally, many others? And how, tell me, shall all be made alive in Christ — and those especially who are to be led into gehenna? And so, if we will have this said of the body, the discourse will stand; but if of justice and sin, by no means.” The fourth testimony, homily 24 [al. 21] on the epistle to the Ephesians: “Our body is corruptible, but the soul incorruptible. Let us not, then, corrupt it also. That first sin of the first man did the former; but what is done after the laver can corrupt even the soul.” The fifth testimony, the homily to the Neophytes: “Seest thou how many are the bounties of Baptism? But to many indeed the grace of Baptism seems to consist only in the remission of sins; we, however, have now counted ten honors of baptism. For this cause we baptize even little infants, although they have not sins — namely, that there may be added to them sanctity, justice, adoption, inheritance, and the brotherhood of Christ.” These, then, are the testimonies on account of which St. John Chrysostom is summoned by the adversaries to the patronage of the Pelagian heresy.
But blessed Augustine long ago defended Chrysostom, in book 1 against Julian, chapter 2 [al. 6], where he speaks thus: “Dost thou then dare to oppose the words of St. John the Bishop, as though from the contrary side, to the opinions of so many such colleagues of his, and to sever him from their most concordant fellowship, and set him up as their adversary? Far be it, far be it to believe or say this evil of so great a man; far be it, I say, that John of Constantinople should resist so many and so great fellow-bishops of his — and most of all the Roman Innocent, the Carthaginian Cyprian, the Cappadocian Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, the Gaul Hilary, the Milanese Ambrose.” Then the same Augustine brings forward many places from the books of Chrysostom, whence he proves that he thought nothing else about original sin than what so many of his fellow-bishops thought. Of these places I shall here set down two. The first is had in the homily to the Neophytes: “Christ came once; he found our paternal handwriting, which Adam wrote. He introduced the beginning of the debt; we increased the interest by our later sins.” Certainly we see in these words that the handwriting of the debt, which Adam wrote, is called ours, and is openly distinguished from the interest of actual sins, which we added. We are, then (by Chrysostom's opinion), debtors to God both on account of the sin contracted from Adam, and on account of the sins committed by our own will. The other place is had in homily 10 on the epistle to the Romans: “What the Cross and the sepulchre were to Christ, that baptism was to us, though not in the same things. For he died and was buried in the flesh; but we, in both, to sin.” From this place blessed Augustine rightly gathers, by the opinion of Chrysostom, that little ones are born in sins. For they also are baptized in Christ, and thereby die to sin. For as many as are baptized in Christ are buried together with him in death, as the Apostle says; and Chrysostom expounds that to be buried together in death is nothing else than to die and be buried to sin, as Christ died and was buried as to the flesh. To these two places, adduced by Augustine, we shall add two others. Let the third place, then, be from the same homily — namely the tenth on the epistle to the Romans, not far from the beginning: “It is clear,” says he, “that it was not that sin which arose from the transgression of the law, but that which arose from the disobedience of Adam — that very sin, I say, it was which was destroying all things.” For in these words Chrysostom distinguishes the sin which arises in us from the transgression of the law, which is called actual, from that sin which from the disobedience of Adam exists in us, which is called original; and he says that from this latter sin death and all evils flowed forth, and that therefore it is no wonder if death reigned even before the law was given. For there was in the world the sin born from the disobedience of Adam, and it was destroying all things. The fourth place is in homily 40 on the first epistle to the Corinthians: “God,” says he, “in the laver of regeneration touches the mind with grace, plucks up the radical sin; and as thou, by re-smelting gold or iron, makest it pure and new, so that Holy Spirit in Baptism re-smelts the soul, as in a furnace, and, by consuming the sin, renders it shining more purely than any gold.” Certainly the radical sin can be feigned to be nothing else than that which we draw from the root — that is, from Adam — and which through Baptism is washed away, both in little ones and in the great. Another place is wont to be adduced, from the homily on Adam and Eve, which is read among the works of Chrysostom. But that homily is not judged to be Chrysostom's — both because it is nowhere found in Greek, and the author is thought to have been not Greek but Latin; and because in it two whole chapters are found in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas.
From these things it will not be difficult to explain those testimonies which the adversaries bring forward from Chrysostom. To the first testimony, from homily 10 on the epistle to the Romans, we answer that Chrysostom indeed wrote that from the sin of Adam we were all made mortal — which is most true — but did not deny that from the same sin of Adam we drew the desert of death — that is, original sin. Nay rather, he openly indicated it, when a little after he subjoined that that mortality, to which we were made liable, was a certain punishment. For the punishment would not be just unless we had also the desert of the punishment — that is, sin. Further, what seemed absurd to Chrysostom — that from the disobedience of one, others should be constituted sinners — is without doubt to be referred to actual sin. For it cannot be that, precisely because one sins, another should be said to sin, or that the sin of one should be the sin of another. And so Chrysostom rightly, in those words — by the disobedience of one many were made sinners — would not have the word “sinners” so taken as though the sense were: by the disobedience of one, many were made actually disobedient; but he would have many called sinners from the disobedience of one because Adam begot such sons as he himself was after the sin; and he himself was a sinner — the sin remaining in him by way of habit — and thence liable to punishment and guilty of death. Further, that this very sin, inhering by way of habit, and the guilt of death, and the very necessity of dying, are in all who are born of Adam, Chrysostom indicated openly enough, since in one place he named it the radical sin, in another sin absolutely (as was said above), in another mortality, in another the punishment of death. But because the Pelagians had not yet arisen, he spoke with less caution, and therefore sometimes named mortality alone, though he did not exclude the habitual sin.
To the second testimony, from homily 17 on the first to the Corinthians, the response is easy. For in that discourse Chrysostom deservedly reprehends those who cast the cause of their damnation upon Adam. For if we committed no sin by our own will, we could perhaps complain of Adam, that on account of him we perish; but since we perpetrate so many and so grave sins, we complain of Adam in vain. Add that Chrysostom was addressing those to whom the sin of origin had already been forgiven through Baptism; hence it is no wonder if he would not have them cast the cause of their damnation upon Adam.
To the third, from homily 39 on the same epistle, the response will be expeditious if we briefly note two things. The one is that Chrysostom's purpose in that place is to demonstrate that those Apostolic words — In Adam all die — are to be understood of the death of the body, not of the death of the soul. Which indeed is most true, as can be known even from this, that in that whole chapter the Apostle discourses of the resurrection of bodies. The other: that those words of Chrysostom — “Did all die in Adam by the death of sin?” etc. — are not to be understood of any death of the soul whatever, but of eternal death, or of a fall into sin not of any kind, but irreparable. Which can be perceived from the contrary. For when he says that not all are made alive through Christ as to the life of the soul, he does not speak of any life of the soul whatever, but of the perfect, which is through everlasting glory. For he proves that not all are made alive through Christ with the life of the soul because many are to be led into gehenna — which reason would effect nothing if he were speaking of the life of the soul through grace, since there are many to be led into gehenna who nevertheless at some time received the life of the soul through grace. These two things being noted, no scruple remains in the words of Chrysostom. For that holy Doctor does not deny that all died in Adam with any death of sin whatever, but with the irreparable and eternal — which (as we said) is most true.
To the fourth, from homily 24 on the epistle to the Ephesians, I answer that Chrysostom speaks only of those who were already baptized, as is plain from those words: “but what is done after the laver can corrupt even the soul.” Now they who are baptized still bear a corruptible body — for Baptism does not take away the necessity of dying, introduced by the first sin; and therefore (as the Apostle speaks, Romans 8) we await the redemption of our body. Yet they have an incorruptible soul — that is, one which is not necessarily corrupted by the death of sin, but can never be corrupted, if baptized men will diligently preserve the grace which they received in Baptism.
To the fifth, from the homily to the Neophytes, St. Augustine answered long ago, book 1 against Julian: that Chrysostom did not say that infants are not defiled with sin — which could be drawn to original sin — but that they have not sins, which without doubt pertains to actual sins. For the Greek words of Chrysostom are these: “For this cause we baptize even the little children, although they have not sins.” But, thou wilt say, Chrysostom wished to demonstrate that Baptism was not instituted for the remission of sins alone; and he believed he had demonstrated this efficaciously enough by the example of the infants, who are baptized in the Church although they have not sins; but this reasoning would effect nothing unless infants lacked all sin, even original. I answer that those against whom Chrysostom was disputing were of this opinion: that they judged that through Baptism grace and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not infused, nor souls purged and adorned, but only the debts of sins remitted, through a certain extrinsic condonation, as among men offenses are remitted and friendships reconciled. Which opinion Chrysostom rightly refutes by the example of the little ones. For original sin is not so much an offense as a stain. For little ones have done nothing by their own will whereby they could offend God; but they are said to have sin because they lack justice, and bear a soul defiled and habitually turned away from God, as we shall show in the following disputation. And so infants need Baptism not so much that sins be remitted to them through the condonation of offenses, as that the stain of sin be wiped away in them, and they themselves receive grace and the gifts by which they may be purged, adorned, justified, and from slaves of Satan be made sons of God.
In the fifth place Theodoret can be adduced. For he, expounding the fifth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, seems to will that the sin of Adam did not pass to posterity except by way of occasion. For thus he speaks: “When the Lord had fashioned Adam, and adorned him with reason, he gave him one precept for the exercising of his reason. He, deceived, transgressed the command; and when he had been made liable to the decree of death, so he begot Cain, and Seth, and the others. But all these, as begotten of him, had a mortal nature. Now such a nature needs many things — food, and drink, and garments, and habitation, and diverse arts; and the use of these often incites to the overpassing of moderation; and the overpassing of moderation begets sin. The divine Apostle says, therefore, that when Adam had sinned, and had been made mortal on account of the sin, both came through to the race — that is, sin and death. For death spread to all, inasmuch as all sinned. For not on account of the first man's sin, but on account of his own, does each one receive the decree of death.” The same opinion the same Theodoret has in the explication of the fiftieth Psalm, treating that little verse: For behold, I was conceived in iniquities. Again, in the epitome of the divine decrees, chapter 12, which is on the incarnation of the Savior, treating that of the Apostle, Romans 5 — As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, etc. — he says thus: “Very necessarily did he put that word 'many' in both members. For when Adam had sinned, and very many had transgressed the divine laws, some remained in the decrees of nature, and took care for virtue — as Abel, Henoch, and Noe, and the Patriarchs, and Prophets, and very many others, not only among the Hebrews, but also among other nations.”
But although Theodoret sometimes expounded certain places of Scripture as the Pelagians were wont, yet that he did not dissent from the Catholic Fathers about the sin of origin can be taught from his own testimonies. For in the same chapter 12 of the divine decrees he speaks thus: “The decree of justice, when one had sinned, delivered the universal race to death. But the divine mercy, when all men were under the curse and entangled in the snares of sin, through the justice of one gave salvation to all.” Thou seest in these words the most open opinion of Theodoret about the sin of origin: namely, he affirms that, Adam sinning, all men were entangled in the snares of sin, under the curse, and delivered to death. And again in the same chapter the same Theodoret speaks thus: “When one sinned, all were condemned; but now, when all have sinned, salvation is set forth for all who will, through faith. When he had thus shown that the justice of one was the saving medicine of the common sin, he showed that through him also was wrought the dissolution of death.” What could be said clearer than that the sin of Adam was a common sin, and that, one sinning, all men were condemned? Again, in the same place, Theodoret subjoins these things: “We are saved not by the law, but attaining justice by the divine mercy. For the law, as was just, brought all to punishment; for we were all perpetrators of sin. For if, when one had sinned, the race was condemned, it was assuredly altogether more just that they who were under sin should undergo punishment.”
But let us briefly explain the places which were brought on the contrary side. When, then, in the first testimony, from the commentary on chapter 5 to the Romans, Theodoret indicated that the sin of the first man came through to posterity by occasion, he speaks without doubt of actual sin, which is committed by one's own will. But although Theodoret says that by occasion of the first sin the posterity of Adam began to slide down into various sins, he is not therefore to be thought to have denied original sin — nay rather, to have asserted it. For he said that the sin of the first man opened the way to our actual sins for this reason: that we draw a corrupted and vitiated nature from Adam. Which he expressed more clearly when he subjoined that sin and death came through to us from Adam, and that not on account of the sin of the first man, but on account of his own, does each of us receive the decree of death. Of which words this is the sentence: that each of us lies under the sentence of death not on account of the sin which was in Adam himself, but on account of that which, derived from Adam, cleaves in each of us. For that Theodoret speaks in this place of the sin of origin, not of the actual, is certain — since, by Theodoret's own opinion, our actual sins do not precede the decree of death, but follow it. For therefore (as he himself wrote in the same commentary) do we sin in act, because we are born liable to the necessity of death and to various passions. And so what he says — that each of us receives the decree of death on account of his own sin — must necessarily be taken of the sin of origin, which truly is in us the cause of death, or of mortality; since actual sins, contrariwise, are not the cause of that same mortality, but its effect. As to the second testimony, from the epitome of the divine decrees: Theodoret did indeed expound that sentence of the Apostle — As by the disobedience of one, etc. — of actual sins, which by occasion of the first sin entered into the world, though he could more rightly have expounded that sentence of original sin; yet in the same epitome (as was demonstrated above) the same Theodoret, by most open testimonies, handed down the orthodox doctrine about the sin of origin.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. Explicantur testimonia Patrum , quae Pelagianis in speciem favere videntur. Ex Patribus pauci quidam sunt, qui pro sententia Pelagianorum adduci possent, vi¬ delicet Clemens Alexandrinus, Ambrosius, Arnobius, S. Joannes Chrysostomus et The- odoretus. Clemens lib. m. Stromat. sub fi¬ nem, sic ait : « Dicant ergo nobis, ubi for¬ nicatus est infans natus, vel quomodo sub Adae cecidit execrationem, qui nihil est ope¬ ratus ? » At non satis constat, cujus haec verba sint, ipsius ne Clementis, an haereticorum, cum quibus in eo Stromate Clemens disputat. Ac probabile est, illis verbis contineri objectio¬ nem Julii Cassiani, et aliorum, qui docebant malam esse generationem, et ea de causa nuptias damnabant. Illi enim prolato testi¬ monio sancti Job : Nemo mundus a sorde, nec sisit infans unius diei, inde colligebant, in¬ fantes nasci immundos et peccatores; et quo¬ niam certum est, non esse infantes propria aliqua actione pollutos, cum nec fornicari, nec aliquid ejusmodi facere possint, efficie¬ bant malam esse generationem , quando¬ quidem ex ea homines procreantur immundi. Sic enim continuo subjicit Clemens. « Re¬ stat ergo eis (ut videtur) consequenter ut di¬ cant, malam esse generationem, non solum eam, quae est corporis, sed etiam eam, quae est animae. » Itaque haeretici illi peccatum originis non negabant, sed asserebant potius et ex ea assertione errorem suum astruere conabantur. S. Ambrosium adducit Michael Servetus (teste Sixto Senense lib. vi. Bibliothecae sanctae, annotat. 236.) contra peccatum ori¬ ginale, propter illa verba, quae habentur in commentario capitis quinti ad Romanos : « Mors dissolutio corporis est, cum anima a corpore separatur. Est et alia mors, quae se¬ cunda dicitur in gehenna, quam non peccato Adae patimur, sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis acquirimus, a qua boni immunes sunt, tantum quod in inferno erant, sed su¬ periori, quasi in libera, quia ad coelum as¬ cendere non poterant. » Sed facilis est responsio. Nam neque com¬ mentaria illa censentur Ambrosii , neque auctor eorum commentariorum quidquam scripsit contra doctrinam Ecclesiae de pec¬ cato originis, sed eam potius, ut cap. 5. os¬ tendimus, -apertissime confirmavit. In verbis autem paulo ante citatis, nihil aliud auctor ille docet, nisi poenam originali peccato de¬ bitam non esse gehennam ignis, hoc est, poe¬ nam sensus, ut recentiores Theologi loqu¬ untur, sed carentiam aeterna; beatitudinis, quae poena damni appellari solet, quam poe¬ nam qui sustinent, in inferno quidem de¬ gunt, sed in parte quadam ejus loci superiore, atque altiore, quam ut ad eam gehennae flamma pertingere queat. Hanc vero esse auctoris illius sententiam, CAPUT IX. 3d3 ex ejus verbis intelligi potest; nam postquam dixerat, ob peccatum originale fuisse ho¬ mines, alioqui bonos, in inferno, neque ad coelum ascendere potuisse, ita subjunxit : « Sententia enim tenebantur data in Adam, quod chirographum in decreti morte Christi deletum est. Sententia autem decreti fuit, ut unius hominis corpus sol veretur super terram; anima vero vinculis inferni detenta exitia pa¬ teretur. » Et infra : « Paterno autem pec¬ cato ex Dei sententia erat apud inferos ; gra¬ tia Dei abundavit in descensu Salvatoris, omnibus dans indulgentiam, cum triumpho sublatis eis in coelum. » Jam vero Arnobius tertio loco adduci po¬ test, qui commentario Psalmi quinquagesimi sic loquitur: « Non dixit David, cum iniqui¬ tatibus, aut cum peccatis genuit me mater mea, sed in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis genuit me mater mea. Dicendo enim matrem eum in suis iniquitatibus ge¬ nuisse, eum in peccatis saeculi peperisse sig¬ navit, quia omne peccatum corde concipitur et ore consummatur, hic autem qui nascitur, sententiam Adae habet, peccatum vero suum non habet. » Hic vero auctor quicumque sit, certe non est Arnobius ille, praeceptor Lactantii, qui scripsit libros septem adversus Gentes, sed aliquis multo recentior, ut aliqui ante nos observarunt. Videtur autem auctor iste non negasse, parvulos habere peccatum, quod ex Adamo contraxerint, sed non habere pec¬ catum, quod propria voluntate commiserint. Nam dicit parvulos habere sententiam Adac, ac per hoc etiam culpam Adae sibi genera¬ tione communicatam. Non enim justa sen¬ tentia esset, nisi culpa praecederet, et id¬ circo cum dixisset. Hic autem qui nascitur, sententiam Adae habet, non adjunxit, pec¬ catum vero non habet ; sed peccatum vero suum non habet ; quod relativum (suum) ad peccatum actuale referri debet, de quo supra dixerat, peccatum corde concipi, et ore con¬ summari. Quarto loco, adducitur S. Joannes Chry- sostomus, qui non solum olim Juliano Pe¬ lagii sectarori primario, sed etiam nostra aetate novis Pelagianis visus est negasse ori¬ ginale peccatum. Haec autem sunt testimonia quae ex Chrysostomo proferri solent. Primum homilia 10. in epistolam ad Romanos: « Quid sibi vult (inquit Chrysostomus) in quo omnes peccaverunt ? quod illo lapso, et illi item qui de ligno non comederunt, effecti sunt ex illo tempore omnes mortales. » Quibus verbis solam mortalitatem primi hominis, non au¬ tem inobedientiam ejus, qua pomum ve¬ titum gustavit, communicari posteris dicere videtur. Quod etiam apertius paulo inferius his verbis scribit : « Videtur, inquit, quae¬ stionem non parvam habere quod dictum est, videlicet multos ob unius inobedientiam peccatores extilisse. Illo enim peccante , ac mortali effecto, et qui ex eo orti sunt, eos tale^esse, nihil absurdum. At ex illius ino- bedientia alterum peccatorem extitisse, quam obsecro , Congruentiam et consequentiam habet ? Quid igitur hoc loco verbum hoc (peccatores) significat? mihi videtur tantum- dem significare, quantum illud (supplicio ob¬ noxii, ac mortis rei) quod Adam mortuo, om¬ nes sunt mortales effecti. » Alterum testimonium habetur homilia 17. in epistolam priorem ad Corinthios : « Quid igitur faciam, inquit, propter illum, vide¬ licet Adamum, pereo? minime propter illum. Neque enim tu sine peccato permansisti ; quod si non idem peccatum, tamen aliud commisisti. » Tertium testimonium homilia 39. in eam- dem epistolam : « Quid igitur, dic mihi, num omnes in Adam morte peccati mortui sunt ? Quomodo ergo Noe vir justus sseculo suo fuit ? quomodo Abraham ? quomodo Job ? quomodo multi denique alii, et quo¬ modo, dic mihi, omnes vivificabuntur in Christo, et hi praesertim, qui in gehennam adducendi sunt ? Itaque si hoc de corpore dictum esse velimus, constabit oratio, si au¬ tem de justitia et peccato, nequaquam. » Quartum testimonium, homilia 24. in epi¬ stolam ad Ephesios : « Corruptibile nobis corpus est , sed incorruptibilis anima. Ne igitur et ipsam corrumpamus, hoc illud pri¬ mum primi hominis peccatum fecit ; quod autem post lavacrum fit, etiam animam cor¬ rumpere potest. » Quintum testimonium , homilia ad Neo¬ phytos : « Vides quot sunt Baptismatis largi¬ tates? sed multis quidem videtur Baptismi gratia in peccatorum tantum remissione con¬ sistere. Nos autem baptismi honores jam computavimus decem, hac de causa et infan¬ tulos baptizamus, quamvis non sint iniquitati peccato; nempe ut eis addatur sanctitas, ju¬ stitia, adoptio, haereditas, et fraternitas Chri¬ sti. » Haec igitur testimonia sunt, ob quae S. Joannes Chrysostomus ad patrocinium Pe- lagianse haereseos ab adversariis advocatur. LIBER IV. 3*4 SedB. Augustinus jam olimChrjsostomum defendit in lib. i. adversus Julianum cap. 2. ubi sic loquitur : « Itane verba S. Joannis Episcopi audes tamquam e contrario tot ta¬ lium sententiis collegarum ejus opponere, eumque ab illorum concordissima societate sejungere, et eis adversarium constituere? absit, absit hoc malum de tanto viro credere, aut dicere; absit, inquam, ut Constantinopo- litanus Joannes tot ac tantis coepiscopis suis, maximeque Romano Innocentio, Carthagi¬ niensi Cypriano, Cappadoci Basilio, Nazian- zeno Gregorio, Gallo Hilario, Mediolanensi resistat Ambrosio. » Deinde multa loca idem Augustinus ex libris Chrysostomi profert, unde probet, eum de peccato originali nihil aliud sensisse, quam tot ejus coepiscopi senserint. Ex his locis duo hic adscribam. Primus habetur in homilia ad Neophytos : « Venit, inquit, semel Chri¬ stus, invenit nostrum chirographum pater¬ num, quod scripsit Adam. Ille initium induxit debiti, nos foenus auximus posterioribus pec¬ catis. » Certe videmus in his verbis chiro¬ graphum debiti, quod scripsit Adam, nostrum vocari, et aperte distingui a fcenore pecca¬ torum actualium, quod nos addidimus. Sumus igitur (Chrysostomi sententia) Deo debitores, tum ob peccatum ab Adamo contractum, tum ob peccata propria voluntate commissa. Alter locus habetur in horail 10. in epist. ad Rom. : « Quod, inquit, Christo Crux etsepul- chrum, hoc nobis baptisma fuit, quamvis non iisdem in rebus. Ille enim carni et mor¬ tuus et sepultus est, nos autem peccato utrumque. » Ex hoc loco recte colligit P. Augustinus ex sententia Chrysostomi, parvulos in peccata nasci. Nam illi etiam baptizantur in Christo, ac per hoc moriuntur peccato. Quotquot enim baptizantur in Christo, consepeliuntur ei in morte , ut Apostolus dicit , exponit autem Chrysostomus, consepeliri in morte , nihil esse aliud, nisi mori et sepeliri peccato, sicut Christus mortuus et sepultus est, quoad car¬ nem. His duobus locis, ab Augustino adductis, addemus nos alia duo. Sit igitur tertius lo¬ cus ex hom. eadem , videlicet decima in epist. ad Rom. non procul ab initio : « Li¬ quet, inquit, quod non ipsum peccatum, quod a legis transgressione ortum est, sed illud quod ab Adami inobedientia ; ipsum illud, inquam, peccatum erat, quod omnia perde¬ bat. » In his enim verbis Chuysostomus dis¬ tinguit peccatura, quod oritur in nobis ex legis transgressione, quod actuale dicitur, ab eo peccato, quod ex Adami inobedientia in nobis existit, quod originale vocatur, atque ait ab isto posteriore peccato mortem et om¬ nia mala promanasse, et ideo mirum non esse, si regnavit mors etiam antequam lex daretur. Nam erat in mundo peccatum ab Adami inobedientia natum, et illud omnia perdebat. Quartus locus est in hom. 40. in epistolam priorem ad Corinth. : « Deus, inquit, in rege¬ nerationis lavacro mentem gratia tangit, ra- dicale peccatum evellit, et ut tu aurum fer- rumve recoquendo purum, novumque facis ; sic Spiritus ille sanctus in Baptismate velut in fornace recoquit ipsam, et peccatum con¬ sumendo quolibet auro purius splendentem reddit. » Certe peccatum radicale non potest aliud fingi, nisi illud, quod a radice, id est, ab Adamo trahimus, quodque per Baptismum tum in parvulis, tum in magnis eluitur. Ad¬ duci solet alius locus ex homilia de Adam et Eva, quae inter opera Chrysostomi legitur. Sed ea homilia non censetur esse Chryso¬ stomi, tum quod graece nusquam inveniatur, et auctor non Graecus, sed Latinus fuisse exi¬ stimetur, tum quod in ea duo integra capita reperiantur in libro de Ecclesiasticis dogma¬ tibus. Ex his non difficile erit ea testimonia expli¬ care, quae adversarii ex Chrysostomo profe¬ runt. Ad primum testimonium ex homilia 10. in epistolam ad Ilotnanos respondemus, Chry- sostomum quidem scripsisse, ex peccato Adae nos omnes mortales effectos esse, quod ve¬ rissimum est, non autem negasse, ex eodem Adae peccato nos meritum mortis, id est, peccatum originale traxisse. Quin potius id aperte indicasse, cum paulo post subjunxit immortalitatem illam, cui obnoxii facti su¬ mus, supplicium quoddam fuisse. Non enim supplicium justum esset, nisi meritum sup¬ plicii, id est, peccatum etiam haberemus. Porro quod absurdum visum est Chryso¬ stomo, ut ex inobedientia unius alii pecca¬ tores constituantur, sine dubio ad actuale peccatum referendum est. Neque enim fieri potest, ut praecise quia unus peccat, alius peccare dicatur, sive ut peccatum unius sit alterius peccatum . 1 taque recte Chrysostomus in illis verbis : Unius inobedientia peccatores constituti sunt multi , noluit verbum, pecca¬ tores, ita accipi, quasi sensus esset : Unius inobedientia multi actu inobedientes facti CAPUT IX. punt; sed voluit multos dici peccatores ex unius inobedientia, quia tales genuit Adam, qualis ipse erat post peccatum, ipse autem peccator erat, peccato in ipso per modum habitus remanente, et inde obnoxius supplicio et mortis j-eus. Porro hoc ipsum peccatum per modum ha¬ bitus inhaerens, et reatum mortis, ac ipsam moriendi necessitatem in omnibus, qui na¬ scuntur ex Adam, inesse, satis aperte Chry- sostomus indicavit, cum alicubi peccatum radicale, alibi peccatum absolute, ut supra dictum est, alibi mortalitatem, alibi mortis supplicium nominaverit. Sed quia nondum exorti fuerant Pelagiani, securiusloquebatur, et ideo solam mortalitatem interdum nomi¬ nabat, cum tamen peccatum habituale non excluderet. Ad alterum testimonium ex homil. 17. in priorem ad Corinthios, facilis est responsio. Siquidem in concione eos Chrysostomus me¬ rito reprehendit, qui causam damnationis sua} rejiciunt in Adamum. Nam si nullum nos peccatum propria voluntate committeremus, possemus fortasse queri de Adamo, quod propter illum pereamus. At cum tam multa et tam gravia peccata perpetremus, frustra querimur de Adamo. Adde quod eos Chry¬ sostomus alloquebatur, quibus jam peccatum originis per Baptismum condonatum fuerat. Proinde mirum non est, si nolebat eos dam¬ nationis sua} causam in Adamum rejicere. Ad tertium ex hom. 39. ineamdem episto¬ lam, expedita responsio erit, si duo breviter annotemus. Alterum est, Chrysostomi pro¬ positum eo loco esse, demonstrare Aposto- lica illa verba : In Adam omnes moriuntur , de morte corporis, non de morte animae esse in- telligenda. Quod quidem verissimum esse, vel ex eo cognosci potest, quod in toto illo capite Apostolus de resurrectione corporum disserat. Alterum, verba illa Chrysostomi : « Num omnes in Adam, morte peccati, morti sunt, etc.» non esse intelligenda de morte animae quacumque, sed de morte aeterna, sive de ca¬ su in peccatum non qudcumque, sed irrepa¬ rabili. Id quod ex contrario perspici potest. Nam cum dicit, non omnes per Christum vivificari, quoad vitam animae, non loquitur de quacumque vita animae, sed de perfecta, quae est per gloriam sempiternam. Probat enim non omnes per Christum vita animae vivificari, quia multi in gehennam adducendi 355 sunt. Quae ratio nihil efficeret, si de vita ani¬ mae per gratiam loqueretur, cum multi sint in gehenham adducendi, qui tamen vitam animae per gratiam aliquando receperunt. His duobus annotatis nihil scrupuli rema¬ net in verbis Chrysostomi. Non enim negat sanctus ille Doctor, omnes in Adam mortuos esse morte peccati quacumque, sed irrepa¬ rabili, atque aeterna. Quod (ut diximus) veris¬ simum est. , Ad quartum ex homil. 24. in epist. ad Ephesios, respondeo, Chrysostomum loqui de iis tantum, qui baptizati jam erant, ut perspicuum est ex illis verbis : «Quod autem post lavacrum fit, etiam animam corrumpere potest. <n Porro qui baptizati sunt, corpus adhuc gerunt corruptibile : non enim Ba¬ ptismus tollit moriendi necessitatem ex primo peccato inductam, et ideo (ut Apostolus lo¬ quitur ad Rom. vili.) expectamus redemptio¬ nem corporis nostri (1). Animam tamen habent incorruptibilem, hoc est, quae non necessario corrumpitur morte peccati, sed potest num- quam corrupi, si velint homines baptizati gratiam diligenter conservare, quam in Ba¬ ptismo perceperunt. Ad quintum ex homilia ad Neophytos re¬ spondit jam olim S. Augustinus lib. i. in Ju¬ lianum, Chrysostomum non dixisse, infantes non esse inquinatos peccato, quod potuisse ad peccatum originale trahi, sed non habere peccata, quod ad peccata actualia sine dubio pertinet. Graeca enim Chrysostomi verba > haec sunt : Ata valito xal va t*e5£o< (Ja7m£o;.uv, xattot a;xapTi([xaTa oux i/ ovtb. At Chrysostomus, inquies, demonstrare volebat, Baptismum non esse institutum ad solam remissionem peccatorum. Id vero satis efficaciter se demonstrasse credidit exemplo infantium, qui baptizantur in Ecclesia, quam¬ vis peccata non habeant. Nihil autem haec ratio efficeret, nisi infantes omni peccato, etiam originali carerent. Respondeo, illos, odvcrsus quos Chrysos¬ tomus disputabat, in ea sententia fuisse, ut existimarent, per Baptismum non infundi gratiam et dona Spiritus sancti, neque animas purgari et ornari, sed solum remitti debita peccatorum, per quamdam condonationem extrinsecam, quemadmodum inter homines remittuntur offensiones, et amicitia} reconci¬ liantur. Quam sententiam recte Chrysostomus refellit exemplo parvulorum. Siquidem ori- (1) Rom. VIII, 23. LIBER IV. 3ofi» ginalc peccatum non tam est offensa, quam macula. Nihil enim parvuli propria voluntate egerunt, unde Deum offendere possent, sed ideo peccatum habere dicuntur, quia carent justitia, et animam inquinatam, atque a Deo aversam, habitualiter gerunt, ut in sequenti disputatione ostendemus. Itaque Baptismo egeut infantes, non tain ut peccata eis remit¬ tantur per condonationem offensarum, quam ut peccati maculum in eis abstergatur, et ipsi gratiam et dona recipiant, quibus pur¬ gentur, ornentur, justificentur, et ex Satante servis filii Dei efficiantur. Quinto loco adduci potest Theodoretus. Is enim exponens caput quintum epistola; ad Romanos, videtur velle, peccatum Adami non transisse ad posteros, nisi ratione occasionis. Sic enim loquitur : « Cum Dominus Adam fabricatus esset, et ratione ornasset, dedit unum praeceptum ad rationem exercendam. Is deceptus, mandatum transgressus est, et cum mortis decreto factus fuisset obnoxius, ita Cain, et Seth, et alios genuit. Hi vero omnes, utpote ex eo geniti, habebant mor¬ talem naturam. Ejusmodi autem natura mul¬ tis indiget, et cibo, et potu, et indumentis, et habitatione, et diversis artibus. Eorum autem usus saepe ad mediocritatis exuperationem incitat. Mediocritatis autem exuperatio pec¬ catum generat. Dicit itaque divinus Apostolus, quod cum Adam peccavisset , et mortalis propter peccatum factus esset, utrumque ad t genus pervenit, id est, peccatum et mors. Ad omnes enim mors pervasit, quatenus om¬ nes peccaverunt. Non enim propter primi hominis peccatum, sed propter suum, unus¬ quisque mortis decretum suscipit. » Eamdem sententiam habet idem Theodoretus in expli¬ catione Psalmi quinquagesimi, tractans ver¬ siculum illum : Ecce enim in iniquitatibus con¬ ceptus sum. Rursus in epitome divinorum decretorum cap. 12. quod est de Salvatoris incarnatione, tractans illud Apostoli ad Rom. v : Sicut per unius inobedientiam peccatores constituti sunt multi etc. sic ait : « Valde necessario illud, multi, in utroque posuit. Etenim cum Adam peccasset, et plurimi divinas leges transgressi essent, permanserunt nonnulli in decretis natura;, et virtutis curam gessere, sicut Abel, Henoch, et Noe, et Patriarcha;, et Propheta;, et alii plurimi non solum apud Hebraeos, sed etiam apud alias gentes. » Caeterum, quamvis Theodoretus interdum loca quaedam Scripturae ita exposuerit, ut Pelagiani solebant : eum tamen de peccato originis a Catholicis Patribus non dissensisse, ex ejus testimoniis doceri potest. Nam in eodem cap. 12. divinorum decretjprum ita loquitur : « Justitiae decretum, cum unus peccasset, universum genus morti tradidit. Divina autem misericordia, cum omnes ho¬ mines essent sub maledicto, et peccati laqueis essent implicati, per unius justitiam dedit omnibus salutem. » Vides in his verbis aper¬ tissimam Theodoreti sententiam de peccato originis. Nimirum affirmat, Adamo peccante, omnes homines peccati laqueis implicatos, sub maledicto, et morti traditos fuisse. Sed rursus in eodem capite ita loquitur idem Theodoretus : « Quando unus peccavit, omnes condemnati sunt : nunc autem cum omnes peccaverint, omnibus volentibus salus proposita est per fidem. Cum sic ostendisset, unius justitiam fuisse communis peccati sa¬ lutare medicamentum : ostendit per ipsum quoque fuisse peractam mortis dissolutio¬ nem. » Quid clarus dici poterat, quam Adami peccatum fuisse commune peccatum, et uno peccante omnes homines condem¬ natos? Rursus ibidem haec Theodoretus subjungit : « Servamur non lege, sed divina misericordia justitiam assequentes. Lex enim, quod justum est, omnes ad supplicium adduxit. Omnes enim fuimus peccati perpetratores. Si enim cum unus peccasset, genus condemnatum est, erat utique omnino justius, eos, qui sub peccato fuerunt, subire supplicium. » Sed explicemus breviter loca, quae contra allata sunt. Cum igitur in primo testimonio ex commentario cap. v. ad Roman. Theodo¬ retus indicabat, peccatum primi hominis ex occasione ad posteros pervenisse, loquitur sine dubio de peccato actuali, quod propria voluntate committitur. Quamvis autem Theo¬ doretus dicat, ex occasione primi peccati coepisse posteros Adami in varia peccata de¬ labi, non tamen idecmegasse existimandus est originale peccatum ; quin potius illud asseruisse. Nam idcirco dixit, peccatum primi hominis viam patefecisse peccatis nostris actualibus, quia naturam corruptam , et vitiatam ex Adamo trahimus. Quod clarius expressit, cum subjunxit, peccatum et mortem ad nos (I)Rom. V, 19. CAPUT X. 357 ex Adamo pervenisse, et non propter pecca¬ tum primi hominis, sed propter suum unum¬ quemque nostrum decretum mortis suscipere. Quorum verborum haec sententia est, unum¬ quemque nostrum mortis sententiae subjacere, non propter peccatum, quod in ipso Adamo fuit, sed propter illud, quod ex Adamo deri¬ vatum, in unoquoque nostrum hajrct, loqui enim hoc loco Theodoretum de peccato ori¬ ginis, non de actuali, certum est, cum ex ipsius Theodoreti sententia peccata nostra actualia decretum mortis non praecedant, sed sequantur. Ideo enim (ut ipse in eodem comment. scripsit) actu peccamus, quia mor¬ tis necessitati , et variis passionibus obnoxii nascimur. Itaque quod ait, unumquemque nostrum ob suum peccatum mortis decretum susci¬ pere, necessario accipi debet de peccato ori¬ ginis, quod vere in nobis causa mortis, sive mortalitatis est, cum peccata actualia e con¬ trario sint ejusdem mortalitatis non causa, sed effectus. Quodattinetadalterum testimonium exepi- tome divinorum decretorum, exposuit qui¬ dem Theodorctns sententiam illam Apostoli : Sicut per unius inobedientiam etc. de pecca¬ tis actualibus, quae occasione primi peccati intraverunt in mundum, cum rectius de pec¬ cato originali sententiam illam exponere potuisset : tamen in eadem epitome (ut su¬ pra demonstratum est) apertissimis testimo¬ niis idem Theodoretus orthodoxam doctri¬ nam de peccato originis tradidit.