Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 8: The same error is refuted from the testimonies of the holy Fathers
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book V. 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).
Let there come, in the second place, the testimonies of the ancient Fathers, which so favor our cause in this part that Calvin was compelled to confess it. For thus he writes, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, §10: “Nor is there need to labor much in investigating what the ancients think here, since Augustine alone can suffice for it, who faithfully and with great diligence gathered the opinions of all. From him, then, let readers take it, if they wish to have anything certain about the sense of antiquity. Now between him and us there is this difference: that he indeed dares not call the disease of concupiscence sin, but, content with the name of weakness to designate it, teaches that it then at last becomes sin when either the work or the consent comes to it; but we hold that very thing for sin, that a man is at all titillated by any desire.” Yet because Luther, Chemnitz, and Calvin himself, to establish their error, abuse the testimonies of the Fathers, and chiefly of St. Augustine, no less in this controversy than in the rest, I have thought it worth while to produce some testimonies of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin.
First of the Greeks let St. Methodius be, who in Epiphanius, in the heresy of Origen, which is number 64, teaches that concupiscence was left in us for the contest, that through it we may be proved, as gold in the furnace. But it is agreed that gold in the furnace is in no way defiled, but purged. He adds also that the motions of concupiscence press upon us from without; from which we understand that they cannot be imputed to us, since they are not ours. Finally, he exhorts to resisting them, lest perchance through negligence we be captured — as if to say that we cannot be captured, and thereby cannot sin, unless we will: “Confidently,” says he, “must we drive them (the concupiscences, namely) away. For that we may be admitted into the kingdom of heaven, proved through all pleasures and sorrows — if we shall not have been changed, but everywhere, like incorrupt gold tried by fire, shall not have departed from our proper virtue — it comes about that our mind is beset by many things.” And below: “Thou seest that the thoughts, on account of the sin dwelling in us, press upon us from without, like rabid dogs, or wild beasts, or daring robbers, always set against us by the tyrant and prince of iniquity, proving us whether we can resist them and draw up our line against them. Come then, O soul, resist bravely, lest perchance, slackening, thou be captured.”
St. Basil, in the book On Virginity, past the middle: “The natural appetite titillates the body toward gluttony or fornication.” And in the book of the Monastic Constitutions, chapter 2, discoursing copiously on this argument, he teaches that all the affections of the flesh are natural, and that if at any time there is sinning in them, the whole is from the negligence of the presiding soul. He compares the same affection of the flesh to a fat and strong horse, which, if perchance it throw its rider, is not itself to be accused, but he who was ruling the reins. Certainly, if the affections of the flesh are natural, it will not be sin to have them, but not to rule them as one ought, and to yield and succumb to them. Now the immoderate motions of concupiscence are called natural by St. Basil, not because they were in our nature before sin, or as though they were not the punishment of sin, but because they would have been in our nature had not God adorned it with the supernatural gift of original justice; and now, that gift being lost through sin, our nature has returned to that state in which it would have been had it been founded in pure natural endowments.
St. John Chrysostom, homily 19 to the people of Antioch, past the middle: “Unless we conquer custom, how shall we conquer concupiscence, whose root has its principle from nature? For to desire is natural; but to desire ill is now of the will.” The same, homily 17 on Matthew: “He did not say simply, whosoever shall lust; but, whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her — that is, who shall have summoned concupiscence to himself, and who, with nothing at all compelling, shall suddenly have let in the wild beast upon the thoughts at rest. For this is now not of nature, but of one's own sloth.” The same, homily 13 on the epistle to the Romans: “The passions in themselves are not sin; but their unbridled immoderation has wrought sin. And, to treat of one of them for example's sake: concupiscence indeed is not sin; but when, having passed measure, it has burst forth outward, then at last it becomes adultery — not from the concupiscence, but from its excessive and unlawful luxuriance.” And that this excessive and unlawful luxuriance has it from the will that it is sin, the same Chrysostom teaches a little after, expounding that verse, “For the good which I will, I do not”: “Whatever can be fault,” says he, “is all of the will.” The author of the Unfinished Work on Matthew, expounding those words of chapter 5, Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, homily 12, openly teaches that the precept, Thou shalt not covet, was given not to the flesh, but to the rational soul, and that therefore to lust with the flesh alone — reason, namely, resisting — is no sin: “He does not command the flesh by what he commands. For what wise man sets a precept for him who, even if he will, cannot obey? But he addresses the soul, and commands the soul,” etc. St. Cyril, book 4 on John, chapter 51, about the middle: “A certain pleasure runs before every sin,” etc. See this place cited above, in the preceding chapter.
Of the Latins: St. Cyprian (or whoever is the author), in the sermon on the washing of the feet: “He so washed those whom the parental blemish had infected, that neither the actual nor the original stain leaves any traces of itself after that washing.” St. Hilary, on Psalm 118, expounding verse 29 — “Remove from me the way of iniquity” — distinguishes openly enough concupiscence from sin, and teaches that it is not sin, but the way to sin: “It had been ready to say: remove iniquity from me. But although, conscious of his own weakness, he remembers that in his body there is a way of sinning, yet through the fear of God he is a stranger to all committing of sin. He prays, then, that the way of sin, by which it is easy to go on to sin, be removed from him — that is, that all the desires of corporal pleasures be taken away, and that no temptation of concupiscence or ignorance, by which as by a way one goes to sin, break in.” St. Ambrose, book 1 On Offices, chapter 21: “It is no small thing to mitigate wrath — not inferior to not being moved at all. The one is ours; the other, of nature. Those commotions, finally, are harmless in boys, which have more of charm than of bitterness.” The same, on Psalm 4, expounding that verse, Be ye angry and sin not: “If you are angry, sin not, but conquer wrath with reason.” The same, in the book On the Sacrament of Regeneration, as St. Augustine cites, book 2 against Julian: “Blessed the death which snatches us from sin, that it may reform us to God. Is anyone justified from sin by the end of nature? Assuredly not; since he who dies to sin remains in sin [if unbaptized]; but he is justified from sin to whom through Baptism all sins are remitted.” The Lutherans err, then, who affirm that the sin of concupiscence cannot be taken out of the way save through death. St. Jerome, in the epistle to Oceanus: “How are we justified and sanctified, if any sin is left in us?” St. Prosper, book 3 On the Contemplative Life, chapter 4: “I cannot perpetrate sin, unless I consent to the evil delectation.” St. Gregory, book 9, epistle 39, to the patrician Theoctista, proves by many arguments that all sins are rooted out radically in baptism: “If there are any who say that sins are remitted in Baptism only on the surface, what is more unbelieving than this preaching, in which they hasten to dissolve the very Sacrament of faith? — in which principally the soul is bound to the mystery of heavenly cleanness, that, absolved radically from all sins, it may cleave to him alone of whom the Psalmist says: But it is good for me to adhere to God.” And below: “He cannot be called wholly clean to whom anything of sin has remained. But no one resists the voice of the truth, which says: He that is washed is wholly clean. Nothing, then, of the contagion of his sin remains to him whom he who redeemed him confesses to be wholly clean.” St. Bernard, in the sermon on the six tribulations: “Sin is at the doors; unless thou thyself open, it will not enter. The appetite itches in the heart; but unless thou yield of thine own accord, it will harm nothing. Restrain consent, lest these prevail, and thou shalt be immaculate.” The same, in sermon 66 [al. 56] on the Canticles: “Take care to resist concupiscence with all thy strength, that it drag thee not into consent, and thenceforth the whole engine of malignity vanishes. Nor is there anything at all to keep the bridegroom from approaching thee, besides the wall of the body alone.”
In the last place let St. Augustine come, whom above the rest they boast to have as patron — Luther in the assertion of article 2, Philip in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and others. Now St. Augustine not only nowhere says in express words that concupiscence is properly sin, but even affirms the contrary in all the tomes of his works. In tome 1, book 2 On Genesis against the Manichaeans, chapter 14: “Sometimes reason manfully bridles and restrains cupidity even when it has been stirred. When that happens, we do not slip into sin, but are crowned after some little wrestling.” The same, book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 13 [al. 15]: “This sin, of which the Apostle so spoke, is called sin because it was made by sin, and is the punishment of sin — seeing it is said of the concupiscence of the flesh.” In tome 2, in epistle 200 to Asellicus: “Although, while we are in the body of this death, the desires of sin are in us, if we gave assent to none of them, there would not be cause for us to say to our Father who is in heaven: Forgive us our debts.” And yet Luther, in the assertion of article 2, draws an argument from the Lord's prayer to prove that concupiscence in the reborn is truly and properly sin. In tome 3, book 14 On the Trinity, chapter 17: “As it is one thing to be free of fevers, another to grow strong again from the weakness which was made by the fevers; and likewise one thing to remove a fixed dart from the body, another to heal by a second cure the wound which was made by it: so the first cure is to remove the cause of the languor, which is done through the pardon of all sins; the second is to heal the languor itself, which is done little by little, by advancing in the renewal of this image. Which two things are demonstrated in the Psalm, where we read: Who forgiveth all thy iniquities — which happens in Baptism; then follows: Who healeth all thy diseases — which happens by daily advances, when this image is renewed.” In tome 4, in the book On Continence, chapter 7: “This languor fault deserved, nature had not; which fault indeed the grace of God has already remitted to the faithful through the laver of regeneration; but under the hands of the same physician nature still struggles with its languor.” And below: “He is propitious to iniquities when he remits sins; he heals diseases when he restrains depraved desires. He is propitious to iniquities by giving pardon; he heals diseases by giving continence. The one was done in Baptism to those confessing; the other is done in the contest to those striving.” In tome 5, book 1 of the City of God, chapter 25: “That concupiscential disobedience — how much more is it without fault in the body of one not consenting, if it is without fault in the body of one sleeping?” Likewise book 20, chapter 26: “Excepting the one mediator, and, after the laver of regeneration, whatever little ones — no one is clean from filth, as it is written, not even an infant whose life is of one day upon the earth.” In this place St. Augustine compares little ones newly born [again] with Christ himself as to cleanness from the filth of sin — which comparison would surely be impious if in baptized little ones there were still, as the Lutherans will have it, the true filth of sin, which, though it were not imputed to them, yet could be imputed. In tome 6, in the book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 11 [al. 10]: “The Apostle defends the work of marriage from all crime, saying: And if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned.” But Luther, in the assertion of the second article, in the last words, contends that the inevitable lust of holy parents, while they generate, is true sin. In tome 7, book 1 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 10: “There is therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For no one is condemned except him who consents to the concupiscence of the flesh unto evil.” And chapter 13: “We say that Baptism gives pardon of all sins, and takes away crimes — not shaves them; nor so that the roots of all sins are held in the evil flesh, as of shaved hairs on the head, whence the sins may grow again to be cut off. But concerning that concupiscence of the flesh I believe they are deceived, or deceive; with which it is necessary that even the baptized — and this though he advance most diligently, and be led by the Spirit of God — struggle with a pious mind. But this, even if it is called sin, is so called assuredly not because it is sin, but because it was made by sin — as a writing is called someone's hand, because the hand made it.” The same he repeats, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 23, and adds that it can also be called sin because it is the cause of sin: “as cold,” says he, “is called sluggish, because it makes men sluggish.” Likewise book 6 against Julian, chapter 5 [al. 3]: “The justified lack all sin, but not all evil.” The same he has in chapter 11 [al. 19], and book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 28 [al. 22]. In tome 8, the tractate on Psalm 50: “This chaste work in a spouse has no fault.” And in discourse 3 on Psalm 118 he again teaches that that petition, Forgive us our debts, does not pertain to the involuntary motions of concupiscence. In tome 9, tractate 41 on John: “Is it that, because the whole iniquity is blotted out, no weakness has remained?” In tome 10, sermon 6 on the words of the Apostle: “There remains, then, the conflict with the flesh, because the iniquity is blotted out, but the weakness remains.” See also sermons 5 and 12.
To these and like testimonies of St. Augustine the adversaries endeavor to answer in various ways. And first, Bucer and Chemnitz say that St. Augustine, where he denies that concupiscence is sin properly so called, speaks not according to the manner of the Scriptures, but in the manner of the common people, and politically; for commonly those actions only are called sins to which the assent of the will is present. But if in that matter the common people erred, who would believe that St. Augustine wished to err with the common people? Next, who could persuade himself that St. Augustine wished to speak vulgarly and politically, against the truth of the Scriptures — not only in discourses and epistles, but even in his most serious books, in which he was refuting the Pelagians from the divine Scriptures? Finally, if the response of these men were true, St. Augustine would have deceived the people with a pernicious error. For he taught that one must not pray for the remission of the motions of concupiscence unless assent be given them — for which remission nevertheless prayer would have to be made, if those motions were sins, as Luther, in the assertion of the second article, Illyricus, in the Apology of the Antwerp Confession, chapter 3, and others will have prayer made. Nor did this slip from Augustine once; we read it frequently repeated and inculcated by him: in epistle 200 to Asellicus; book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 4; book 1 against the Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter 13; the book On the Perfection of Justice; and discourse 3 on Psalm 118. The second response is of the same Chemnitz: that with Augustine sin is taken in two ways — in one way for that which makes guilty, in another way for that which does not make guilty, though it is true sin and true iniquity; and that of this latter kind is concupiscence in the reborn; but that Augustine speaks of the former kind when he denies that concupiscence is sin. But this distinction is altogether fabricated, since with Augustine every true sin makes guilty. For thus he himself speaks, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 26 [al. 23]: this it is not to have sin — not to be guilty of sin; and therefore that same man says that sin, the guilt being taken away, is not sin except tropically, as we cited above from book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 23; and the same man said, in tractate 41 on John, that in Baptism not only the guilt, but also the iniquity, is taken away. The third solution is Calvin's, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 3, §§12 and 13: that St. Augustine at one time feared the odium which the Pelagians were striving to fasten on him, as though he taught that through Baptism not all sins are remitted, and therefore abstained from the name of sin when he was speaking of concupiscence; but afterwards, the error being now prostrated and the odium overcome, openly called concupiscence sin, book 5 against Julian, chapter 3, and tractate 41 on John, where he speaks from his own opinion. But though it is perhaps lawful at times, from fear of odium, to conceal the truth, it is never lawful to say falsehood, especially in a cause of faith, as the same St. Augustine teaches in the book On Lying. But in the testimonies adduced by us concupiscence is not only not called sin, but in open words is said not to be sin except improperly. Moreover, in that tractate 41 on John, where Calvin says that Augustine speaks without fear of odium and from his own mind, did he not most openly say that the concupiscence left in the reborn is weakness, not iniquity? “Is it,” says he, “that, because the whole iniquity is blotted out, no weakness has remained?” From which we understand that he speaks of sin improperly, when in the same tractate once or twice he calls concupiscence sin, using those words of the Apostle, Romans 6: Let not sin reign in your mortal body; and those of Romans 7: It is not I that work it, but the sin that dwelleth in me. Finally, if St. Augustine in book 5 against Julian had already prostrated the error, and therefore was speaking freely, much more had he prostrated the same error in book 6; and yet in that book, chapter 5, he says thus: “But thou, who thinkest that, if concupiscence were an evil, he who is baptized would lack it, errest much. For he lacks all sin, not all evil.” The books of the Retractations also are later than the books against Julian; and yet in book 1, chapter 15, it is most openly written that concupiscence is a weakness, and not sin except by metonymy. Finally, the book On the Perfection of Justice is later even than the books of the Retractations; and yet in that book, at the end, he teaches that the involuntary motions of concupiscence are so far from being sins that for their remission there is no need to say: Forgive us our debts. The fourth solution is Chemnitz's, page 484, where, after he had alleged for himself the place of Augustine from book 5 against Julian, chapter 3, he subjoins these words: “This is a most manifest retractation, or explication, of what he had before said less conveniently — that the remaining concupiscence is not sin, but the punishment and cause of sin.” But this solution is refuted from what was said a little before. For if St. Augustine, in book 5 against Julian, chapter 3, had retracted that opinion in which he had said that concupiscence is not properly sin, how would he have said this same thing again in book 6 against Julian, chapter 5, and in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 15, and in the book On the Perfection of Justice?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT Vili. Refellitur idem error ex testimoniis sanctorum Patrum. Accedant secundo loco testimonia veterum patrum, quae ita in hac parte causae nostrae favent, ut id Calvinus fateri coactus fuerit. Sic enim scribit lib. 3. Institutionum, cap. 3. § 10 : « Neque opus est multum investigando laborare, quid hic veteijes sentiant, quando unus Augustinus sufficere ad id potest, qui fideliter magnaque diligentia omnium sen¬ tentias collegit. Ex illo igitur sumant lecto¬ res, si quid de sensu antiquitatis habere certi volunt. Porro inter illum et nos hoc discri¬ men est, quod ipse quidem concupiscentiae morbum peccatum vocare non audet, sed ad illum designandum infirmitatis nomine con¬ tentus, tum demum fieri peccatum docet, ubi vel opus, vel consensus accedit. Nos au¬ tem illud ipsum pro peccato habemus, quod aliqua omnino cupiditate homo titillatur. » Quia tamen Lutherus, Kemnitius et ipse etiam Calvinus ad errorem suum stabilien¬ dum Patrum testimoniis ac potissimum S. Augustini, non minus in hac controversia, quam in ceeteris abutuntur , opera; pre¬ tium esse duxi, aliquot Patrum, tum Graeco¬ rum , tum Latinorum testimonia produ¬ cere. Primus ex Graecis sit S. Methodius, qui apud Epiphanium in haeresi Originis, quae est num. 64. docet concupiscentiam in nobis relictam esse ad agonem, ut per eam pro¬ bemur, tanquam aurum in fornace. Constat autem aurum in fornace nullo modo inqui¬ nari, sed purgari. Addit etiam, motus con¬ cupiscentiae forinsecus contra nos instare. Ex quo intelligimus, eos nobis imputari non posse, cum nostri non sint. Denique horta¬ tur ad resistendum illis, ne forte ob negli- gentiam capiamur. Quasi dicat, nos capi non posse, ac per hoc nec peccare, nisi veli¬ mus : « Confidenter, inquit, ipsas (concupi¬ scentias videlicet) depellere oportet. Quo enim admittamur in regnum coelorum, per omnes voluptates, ac tristitias probati, si non im¬ mutati fuerimus, sed ubiqne velut aurum incorruptum, per ignem examinati a propria virtute ne discesserimus, contingit hoc, ut a multis mens nostra infestetur. » Et infra : « Vi¬ des, inquit, quod cogitationes propter inha¬ bitans in nobis peccatum, forinsecus nobis instant, velut canes rabiosi, aut feri, aut au¬ dentes latrones, contra nos semper infligati a tyranno, ac principe iniquitatis, probantes nos, an resistere ipsis possimus, et aciem contra instruere. Age igitur, o anima, forti¬ ter resiste, ne forte remittens capiaris. » S. Basilius in lib. de virginitate, ultra me¬ dium : « Naturalis, inquit, appetitus ad gu- lositatem, aut scortationem corpus titillat. » Et in lib. constitutionum Monasticarum, cap. 2. copiose de hoc argumento disserens, do¬ cet, omnes carnis affectus esse naturales, et si quando in iis peccatur, totum esse ex negligentia anima; pra;sidentis. Eumdem carnis affectum comparat equo pingui, ac robusto, qui si forte sessorem dejiciat, non ipse accusandus est, sed is, qui habenas re¬ gebat. Certe si affectus carnis sunt naturales, non erit peccatum illos habere ; sed eos non regere ut oportet, eisque cedere, atque suc¬ cumbere. Dicuntur autem a sancto Basilio naturales, immoderati concupiscentia; mo¬ tus, non quod fuerint in natura nostra ante peccatum, vel quasi non sint poena peccati, CAPUT Vili. sed quia futuri fuissent iu natura nostra, ni¬ si Deus eam supernaturali dono justitiae ori¬ ginalis ornasset; et jam dono illo per pec¬ catum amisso, natura nostra ad eum statum redierit, in quo futura fuisset, si in puris naturalibus condita esset. S. Joannes Chrysostomus homil. 19. ad populum Antiochenum, ultramedium : « Ni¬ si consuetudinem, inquit, vincamus, quomo¬ do concupiscentiam vincemus, cujus radix habet a natura principium ? Concupiscere enim naturale ; at male concupiscere jam est voluntatis. » Idem homil. 17. in Matthae¬ um. « Non simpliciter, inquit, dixit, qui con¬ cupiverit, sed qui viderit mulierem ad con¬ cupiscendum, id est, qui concupiscentiam sibi consciverit, quique nullo omnino cogen¬ te quiescenti cogitationum feram subito im¬ miserit. Hoc enim non jam naturae est, sed propriae desidiae. » Idem homil. 13. in epist. ad Roman : « Ipse, inquit, passiones in se peccatum non sunt, effraenata vero ipsarum immoderantia peccatum operata est. Et ut exempli gratia unam illarum tractem, con¬ cupiscentia quidem peccatum non est, quan¬ do vero egressa modum foras eruperit, tunc demum adulterium fit, non a concupiscen¬ tia, sed a nimio, et illicito illius luxu. » Is¬ tum autem nimium, et illicitum luxum a vo¬ luntate habere, ut peccatum sit, docet idem Chrysostomus paulo post, exponens illud : Non quod volo bonum, hoc ago : « Quacum¬ que, inquit, culpa esse potest, ea omnis vo¬ luntatis est. » Auctor operis imperfecti in Matthaeum, ex¬ ponens illa verba capitis quinti : Qui viderit mulierem , ad concupiscendum eam , hom. 12. aperte docet, praeceptum, Non concupisces, non esse datum carni, sed anima rationali, ac propterea sola carne concupiscere, ratio¬ ne videlicet reluctante, nullum esse pecca¬ tum : « Non mandat, inquit, carni, qua mandat. Quis enim sapiens illi ponit praece- ptum, qui, et si vult, non potest obaudire ? sed animam alloquitur, et anima mandat, etc. » Sanctus Cyrillus lib. iv. in Joan. cap. 51. circa medium : « Voluptas quadam, inquit, ante omne peccatum pracurxit, etc. » Vide hunc locum supra citatum, cap. superiore. Ex Latinis, S. Cyprianus (vel quicumque est auctor) in sermone de ablutione pedum : « Sic, inquit, abluit, quos parentalis labes infecerat, ut nec actualis : nec originalis ma¬ cula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat. » 411 S. Hilarius in Psalm. cxviii. exponens vers. 29 « Viam iniquitatis amove a me », satis aperte distinguit concupiscentiam a peccato, eamque non peccatum, sed vitam ad peccatum esse docet : « Promptum, in¬ quit, fuerat dicere, iniquitatem amove a me. Sed licet infirmitatis suae conscius, cum meminerit in corpore suo viam inesse pec¬ candi, tamen per timorem Dei a peractione peccati omnis alienus est. Viam igitur pecca¬ ti, qua ad peccatum pergere promptum est, amoveri a se deprecatur, id est, omnia cor¬ poralium voluptatum desideria auferri, nec tentationem aliquam concupiscentia}, aut ignorantiae, qua tanquam per viam ad pec¬ catum itur, ingruere. » S. Ambrosius lib. i. de officiis cap. 21 : a Non mediocre, inquit, est mitigai'e iracun¬ diam, non infei'ius, quam omnino non com- moveil. Hoc nostrum est, naturae illud. Illae denique commotiones in pueris innoxiae sunt quae plus habent gratiae, quam amaritudi¬ nis. » Idem in Psalm. iv. exponens illud : Irascimini , et nolite peccare : « Si irascimini, inquit, nolite peccare, sed vincite ratione ii-a- cundiam. » Idem in libro de Sacramento re¬ generationis, ut citat S. Augustinus lib. ii. in Julianum : c< Beata, inquit, mors, quae nos peccato eripit, ut i’efoi'met Deo. Numquid naturae fine justificatur a peccato aliquis ? non utique quoniam qui peccato moritur, in peccato manet ; ille autem justificatur a pec¬ cato, cui per Baptismum peccata remittuntur omnia. » Errant igitur Lutherani, qui con¬ cupiscentiae peccatum affirmant non posse tolli de medio, nisi per mortem. S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Oceanum : « Quomodo, inquit, justificati sumus, et sanctificati, si peccatum aliquod in nobis re¬ linquitur ? » S. Pi’osper lib. iii. de vita contemplativa cap. 4 : « Peccatum, inquit, perpetrare non possum, nisi malae delectationi consentiam. » S. Gregorius lib. ix. epist. 39. ad Theo- thistam patritiam, multis ai’gumentis probat, peccata omnia l-adicilus in baptismate ex- tirpari : « Si qui sunt, inquit, qui dicunt, peccata in Baptismate supci-ficie tenus dimitti quid est hac praedicatione infidelius, in qua ipsum' fidei Sacramentum festinant solvere ? in quo pxincipaliter ad coelestis munditiae mysterium anima ligatur, ut absoluta radi¬ citus a peccatis omnibus, soli illi inhaereat, de quo Psalmista ait : Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonuxn est. » Et infra: « Totus mundus 1 .1 Blilt V. dici non potest, cui de peccato aliquid re- niansit : Sed nemo resistit voci veritatis, qme ait, qui lotus est, mundus est totus : niliil ergo ei de peccati sui contagione remanet, quem totum fatetur mundum ipse, qui red¬ emit. » S. Bernardus in serm. de sex tribulatio¬ nibus : « Peccatum, inquit, in foribus est, nisi ipse aperias non intrabit ; appetitus in corde prurit, sed nisi sponte cesseris, nihil nocebit ; consensum cohibe, ne prsevaleant haec, et immaculatus eris. » Idem in serm. 56. in Cantica : « Cura, inquit, concupi¬ scentia} totis resistere viribus, ut non per¬ trahat in consensum, et omnis deinceps ma¬ lignitatis machina evanescit. Nec est omnino quod sponsum perhibeat appropinquare tibi praeter solum parietem corporis. » Ultimo loco S. Augustinus accedat, quem preeter caiteros patronum se habere jactant, Lutherus in assertione artic. 2. Philippus in Apologia Confessionis Augustana}, et alii. Porro S. Augustinus non modo nusquam di¬ sertis verbis dicit, concupiscentiam proprie esse peccatum, sed etiam contrarium affirmat in omnibus tomis operum suorum. Tomo i. lib. ii. de Genesi, contra Mani- charns c. 1 i : « Aliquando, inquit, ratio vi¬ riliter etiam commotam cupiditatem refrenat atque compescit. Quod cum fit, non labimur in peccatum, sed cum aliquanta luctatione coronamur. » Idem lib. i Retractationum cap. 13 : « Hoc peccatum, de quo sic cstlo- cutus Apostolus, ideo peccatum vocatur, quia peccato factum est, et poena peccati est. Quandoquidem de concupiscentia carnis dicitur. » Tomo ii. in epist. 200. ad Asellicum : « Quamvis insint, dum sumus in corpore mortis hujus, desideria peccati, si nulli eo¬ rum adhiberemus assensum, non esset unde diceremus Patri nostro, qui est in coelis : Di¬ mitte nobis debita nostra. » Et Lutherus ta¬ men in assertione art. 2. ex oratione Domi¬ nica ducit argumentum ad probandum, con¬ cupiscentiam in renatis esse vere, propricquc peccatum. Tomo. 3. lib. xiv. de Trinitate cap. 17 : « Quemadmodum aliud est carere febribus, aliud ab infirmitate, qme febribus facta est, revalescere, itemque aliud est infixum 'te¬ lum de corpore demere, aliud vulnus quod eo factum est, secunda curatione sanare; ita prima curatio est, causam removere languoris quod per omnium fit indulgentiam pecca¬ torum ; secunda ipsum sanare languorem* quod fit paulatim perficiendo in renovatione hujus imaginis. Quae duo demonstrantur in Psalmo, ubi legitur : qui propitius fit om¬ nibus iniquitatibus tuis, quod fit in Bapti¬ smo. Deinde sequitur : Qui sanat omnes lan¬ guores tuos, quod fit quotidianis accessibus cum haje imago renovatur. » Turno iv. in lib. de continentia cap. 7 : « Languorem istum culpa meruit, natura non habuit : quam sane culpam per lavacrum regenerationis Dei gratia fidelibus jam re¬ misit, sed sub ejusdem medici manibus ad¬ huc natura cum suo languore confligit. » Et infra : « Propitius fit iniquitatibus, cum peccata dimittit ; sanat languores, cum de¬ sideria prava compescit ; propitius fit iniqui¬ tatibus, dando indulgentiam ; sanat languo¬ res dando continentiam. Illud factum est in Baptismo confilentibus, hoc fit in agone cer¬ tantibus. » Tomo v. lib. 1. de civit. Dei cap. 25: « Illa concupiscentialis inobedientia quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentien¬ tis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormien¬ tis ? » Item lib. xx. cap. 26 : « Excepto uno mediatore, et post lavacrum regenerationis, quibusque adhuc parvulis, nemo mundus a sorde, sicut scriptum est, nec infans, cujus est vita unius diei super terram. » Comparat hoc loco S. August. parvulos recens natos cum ipso Christo, quoad munditiam a sorde peccati. Quai sane comparatio "impia esset, si in parvulis baptizatis adhuc esset, ut Lu- therani volunt, sordes vera peccati, quai tam¬ etsi eis non imputaretur, ^ tamen imputari posset. Tomo vi. in lib. de bono conjugali cap. 11 : « Opus nuptiarum ab omni crimine de¬ fendit Apostolus dicendo : Et si acceperis uxorem non peccasti. » At Lutherus in as¬ sertione secundi articuli in ultimis verbis, contendit libidinem inevitabilem sanctorum parentum, dum generant, verum esse pec¬ catum. Tomo vii. lib. 1. contra duas epist. Pela- gianorum cap. 10 : « Nulla ergo damnatio est iis, qui sunt in Christo Jesu : Non enim damnatur , nisi qui concupiscentiae carnis consentit ad malum. » Et cap. 13 : « Di¬ cimus Baptisma dare omnium indulgentiam peccatorum, et auferre crimina, non radere, nec ut omnium peccatorum radices in mala carne teneantur, quasi rasorum in capite ca¬ pillorum, unde crescant iterum resecanda CAPUT Vllf. peccata. Sed de ista concupiscentia carnis falli eos credo, vel fallere, cura qua necesse est ut bnptizatus, et hoc si diligentissime pro¬ ficit, et spiritu Dei agitur, pia mente con¬ fligat. Sed haec etiamsi vocatur peccatura, non utique quia peccatum est, sed quia pec¬ cato facta est, sic vocatur, sicut Scriptura manus cujusque dicitur, quod manus eam fecerit. » Idem repetit lib. i. de nuptiis et concupiscentia cap. 23. et addit, posse etiam dici peccatum, quia est causa peccati : « sic¬ ut frigus, inquit, dicitur pigrum, quia facit homines pigros. » Item lib. vi. in Julianum cap. 3 : « Omni peccato carent justificati, sed non omni malo. «Idem habetcap.il. et lib. ii. de peccatorum meritis, et remissione cap. 22. Tomo 8. tract. in Psalm. 30 : « Opus hoc castum in conjuge non habet culpam. » Et concione 3. in Psalm. 118. iterum docet, pe¬ titionem illam : Dimitte nobis debita nostra, non pertinere ad motus concupiscentia? invo¬ luntarios. Tomo ix. ( tract. 41. in Joan. : « Numquid quia deleta est tota iniquitas, nulla remansit infirmitas ? » Tomo x. serm. 6, de verbis Apostoli : llestat ergo cum carne conflictus, quia de¬ leta est iniquitas, sed remanet infirmitas. » Vide etiam serm. 3. et 12. Ad haec, et similia S. Augustini testimonia variis modis respondere conantur adversarii. Ac primum Bucerus et Kemnitius dicunt S. Augustinum, ubi negat concupiscentiam esse peccatum proprie dictum, non loqui secun¬ dum morem Scripturarum, sed more vulgi, et politice. Vulgo siquidem eae solum actio¬ nes dicuntur peccata, quibus adest volun¬ tatis assensus. At si ea in re vulgus errabat, quis credat sanctum Augustinum cum vulgo errare vo¬ luisse ? Deinde quis sibi persuadere poterit, sanctum Augustinum non solum in concioni¬ bus et epistolis, sed etiam in libris maxime seriis, in quibus ex Scripturis divinis Pcla- gianos refellebat, vulgariter, et politice con¬ tra Scripturarum veritatem loqui voluisse? Denique si vera esset istorum responsio, sanctus Augustinus pernicioso errore popu¬ lum decepisset. Docuit enim, non esse oran¬ dum pro remissione motuum concupiscentia} nisi eis praebeatur assensus. Pro qua tamen remissione orandum esset, si motus illi pec¬ cata essent, ut orari volunt Lutherus in as¬ sertione articuli secundi. Illyricus in Apo- 413 logia Confessionis Antuerpiensis cap. 3. et alii. Neque id excidit semel Augustino, sed frequenter ab eo repetitum, et inculcatum le¬ gimus in epist. 200. ad Asellicum lib. n. de peccatorum meritis et remissione cap. 4. lib. 1. contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, cap. 13. libro de perfectione justitia?, et concione 3. in Psalm. 118. Altera responsio est ejusdem Kemnitii , apud Augustinum, peccatum dupliciter ac¬ cipi, uno modo pro eo quod facit reum, alio modo pro eo quod non facit reum, tamelsi verum sit peccatum, et vera iniquitas, atque hujus generis posterioris esse concupiscen¬ tiam ia renatis, sed Augustinnm loqui de priore genere, cum negat concupiscentiam esse peccatum. At ha?c distinctio omnino commentitia est siquidem apud Augustinum « omne verum peccatum facit reum. » Sic enim ipse lo¬ quitur lib. 1. de nuptiis et concupiscentia cap. 23. hoc est, non habere peccatum, reum non esse peccati, et ideo ipse idem, peccatum sublato reatu, dicit non esse peccatum, nisi tropice, ut supra citavimus ex lib. i. de nu¬ ptiis et concupiscentia cap. 23. et idem ipse in Baptismo non solum reatum, sed etiam iniquitatem tolli dixit tractatu 41, in Jo- annem. Tertia solutio Calvini est, lib. m. Institut. cap. 3. §. 12. qt 13. sanctum Augustinum aliquando timuisse invidiam, quam illi con¬ stare studebant Pelagiani, quasi doceret, per Baptismum non remitti omnia peccata, et ideo abstinuisse a nomine peccati, quando de concupiscentia loquebatur : sed postea prostrato jam errore, et invidia superata aperte vocasse concupiscentiam peccatum, lib. 3. in Julianum cap. 3. et tract. 41. in Joan. ubi ex propria sententia loquitur. At licet quidem fortasse ob metum invidia? aliquando celare veritatem, sed nunquam licet dicere falsitatem, praesertim in causa fidei, ut idem S. Augustinus docet in libro de mendacio. In testimoniis vero a nobis ad¬ ductis non solum non appellatur concupi¬ scentia peccatum, sed apertis verbis dicitur, non esse peccatum, nisi improprie. Praeterea in illo tract. 41; in Joannem, ubi dicit Calvinus Augustinum loqui sine timore invidia?, et ex propria mente, nonne apertis¬ sime dixit concupiscentiam in renatis reli¬ quam, esse infirmitatem non iniquitatem ? « Numquid, inquit, quia deleta est tota ini¬ quitas, nulla remansit infirmitas ? » Ex quo LIBRI I V. 41 1 intclligimus eum do peccato improprie loqui, cum in eodem tractatu semel aut iterum con¬ cupiscentiam vocat peccatum, utens verbis illis Apostoli ad Romanos vi : Non regnet pec¬ catum in vestro mortali corpore. Et illis ad Rom. vii : Non ego operor illud , sed quod ha¬ bitat in me peccatum (1). Denique si sanctus Augustinus in lib. v. in Julianum, jam errorem prostraverat, et ideo libere loquebatur, multo magis prostra¬ verat eumdem errorem in lib vi. et tamen in eo lib. cap. v. sic ait : « Tu autem qui pu¬ tas, quod si malum esset concupiscentia, ca¬ reret ea qui baptizatur, multum enas. Omni enim peccato caret, non omni malo. » Libri quoque retractationum posteriores sunt li¬ bris in Julianum, et tamen lib. 1. cap. 15. apertissime scribitur, concupiscentiam infir¬ mitatem esse, non autem peccatum, nisi per mctonymiam. Denique liber de perfectione justitiae posterior est etiam libris retracta¬ tionum, et tamen in eo libro extremo docet, adeo non esse peccata motus concupiscentiae involuntarios, ut pro eorum remissione non sit opus dicere : Dimitte nobis debita nostra. Quarta solutio est Kemnitii pagina 484. ubi post quam allegaverat pro se locum Augu¬ stini ex lib. v. in Julianum cap. 3. subjungit hicc verba : « Ilsec manifestissima est re¬ tractatio, seu explicatio ejus, quod antea in¬ commodius dixerat, reliquam concupiscen¬ tiam non esse peccatum, sed poenam et cau¬ sam peccati. » • At haec solutio refellitur ex iis, quae paulo ante sunt dicta. Nam siS. Augustinus lib. v. in Julianum, cap. 3, retractasset sententiam illam, qua dixerat, concupiscentiam non esse proprie peccatum, quomodo hoc idem ite¬ rum dixisset lib. vj. in Julianum cap. 5. et lib. i. Retractationum cap. 15. et in lib. de perfectione justitia;.