Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 11: Objections drawn from other places of Scripture are solved
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).
I have resolved briefly to explain all the places which the adversaries bring forward to prove that concupiscence is from its nature sin. Besides those places from the epistle to the Romans, then, which were explained by us in the preceding chapter, they add these also.
First, Chemnitz and others bring forward the testimony from Genesis, chapters 6 and 8, where it is said: All the thought of man's heart is bent upon evil at all times; and in Hebrew it is said that the very imagination of the human heart is wholly, and always, evil. I answer: that place of Genesis seems like that place which we last explained from chapter 8 to the Romans. For Moses describes the disposition of those who were living in the time of Noe, and says that they all walked according to the flesh, and were accustomed to think and relish only the things that are of the flesh. And so the imagination of the heart, or (as it is had in chapter 6) the imagination of the thoughts of the heart, is called wholly and always evil, because those men thought of almost nothing except what pertained to the pleasure or profit of the flesh. But this sin was actual, not original — unless perchance, as the Latin codices have it, the adversaries admit that the thought of the heart of those men was not so much actually evil as prone to evil. For that proneness to evil we concede to be a wound left from original sin; but we deny that it is properly sin, unless it come forth into a voluntary act — and then indeed it is sin, but actual, not original, as we have now often said and proved.
The second, from Psalm 18: Who can understand sins? and Psalm 50: Create a clean heart in me, O God. These two places Luther produces, in the assertion of the second article, to prove that even justified men always have sins and an unclean heart — which cannot be except by reason of the concupiscence which remains in the justified until death. I answer: these places pertain in no way to original sin, nor to the concupiscence which remains after justification — both because in justification all sins are remitted; and because concupiscence is not a hidden or obscure thing, so that it should be said, Who can understand sins?; and finally because there is no need to pray for the expiating of concupiscence or of its involuntary motions, as St. Augustine teaches in epistle 200, cited above. David, then, speaks of actual sins — whether venial, of which we are rarely free, or mortal and hidden, and of which we are not altogether certain whether they have been remitted to us. And so David, although he hoped that he was justified, yet rightly said: Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord. And: Create a clean heart in me, O God. For he was asking that his heart be cleansed from daily stains, or even from graver ones, if perchance he had ignorantly been defiled with these too.
The third, from Jeremias 17: The heart of man is perverse. But who would deny, says the Saxon Confession, that the perversity of the heart is truly sin? I answer: the perverse heart in Jeremias is not a heart evil, or defiled with sins, but crafty, and hard to be penetrated. For the Hebrew word is one meaning “deep,” not “evil”; whence also the Seventy rendered “a deep heart”; and the following word agrees — “and inscrutable.” But even if we understand the heart of man to be called evil, that will have to be taken as if it were said: prone, from corrupted nature, to evil. But proneness is not properly sin, as we have often said. Finally, the Prophet speaks of the impious, whose heart we do not deny to be perverse and unclean — since contrariwise of the just it is said, Matthew 5: Blessed are the clean of heart; and 1 Timothy 1: The end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, etc.; and Acts 15: Purifying their hearts by faith.
The fourth, from Matthew 6: “For the Lord's prayer alone” (says Luther, in the assertion of article 2) “concludes all under sin. For he who prays that the will of God be done confesses that he does not do the will of God; he who asks that the name of God be sanctified acknowledges that he pollutes the name of God; he who desires that the kingdom of God come understands that he is under the kingdom of the devil.” I answer: the objection is most empty. For (as St. Cyprian rightly expounds, in the sermon on the Lord's prayer) we ask that the name of God be sanctified in us, that we, who have been sanctified through baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun to be. We desire that the kingdom of God come, which we await after the resurrection and the judgment, that we, who in the present life suffer with Christ, may in the future reign with him. We pray that the will of God be done on earth as it is done in heaven, that the unbelievers, who are still earthly, may through faith do the will of God, as the faithful do it, who through the same faith have already begun to be heavenly. Finally, the Lord's prayer is so far from convincing that original sin perpetually cleaves in us, as Luther dreams, that even Christ, who beyond controversy had no sin at all, prayed that the will of God be done, Matthew 26; and Augustine says, in epistle 200 and elsewhere, that that petition of the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, would not be necessary to us if we had no sin other than the original.
The fifth, from Matthew 13 and Luke 10: “Where by two parables” (says Luther, in the place cited) “the Lord shows that man is not straightway freed from all sin, but little by little, and thereby that there always remains something of sin to be purged.” The former parable is of the leaven put into three measures of meal, which little by little were leavened; the latter is of the Samaritan, who led the man wounded by robbers to the inn, and did not cure his wounds in a moment, but willed them to be cured little by little. I answer: those parables help Luther's cause nothing. For, as St. Augustine rightly teaches, book 14 On the Trinity, chapter 17, and elsewhere, when the Scriptures signify that man is cured and advances little by little, they speak not of the remission of sins, but of the curing of the languor left from sin. For as it is one thing to pluck the dart out of the body, another to heal the wound inflicted by the dart, so also it is one thing to take away the sin, which is done in baptism, another to heal altogether the wound made by the sin — that is, concupiscence — which is done little by little, while we go from virtue to virtue. But Luther confounds the cause with the effect — that is, the sin of origin with the wounds born from it.
The sixth Luther draws from chapter 15 of John, where he says that the disciples are to be purged, whom nevertheless in chapter 13 he had said to be clean. For hence it follows that after justification sins still remain. I answer: purgation in justified men is indeed necessary, but on account of actual sins, and especially venial, which daily creep in — not on account of the original, which is perfectly remitted in baptism. See Augustine, tractate 80 on John.
The seventh he takes from that of Galatians 5: The flesh lusteth against the spirit. But it has already been answered above that that concupiscence is not properly sin while the spirit struggles against it, because it is only in the flesh, which cannot be the seat of sin. For true sin must be sought not in the flesh, but in the mind.
The eighth, from that of Ephesians 4: Be renewed in the spirit of your mind. The Apostle would not command those already reborn (as Luther and Calvin object) to be renewed, unless some oldness remained in them; but the oldness is sin, contracted from the first man, as the newness is grace, given by the bounty of the second man. I answer: oldness in the Scriptures is taken in two ways — first, for the sin of origin; second, for the evils left from sin. And therefore a man can be said both to be perfectly renewed through the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, as is said in Titus 3, and yet to need renewal, and to be renewed from day to day. Hence St. Augustine, book 6 against Julian, chapter 5: “Expounding my words not according to my sense, but according to thy guile, thou affirmest that I said that grace does not perfectly make the man new. I do not say this; attend to what I say: grace perfectly makes the man new.” And presently: “Even now it perfectly renews the man, so far as concerns the deliverance from absolutely all sins — not so far as concerns the deliverance from all evils.” Add that oldness and newness are said in the Scriptures also of actual sins, and of the evil habits contracted thence, and of the deliverance from the same. For so seem to be taken the things which the Apostle says in Colossians 3: Stripping yourselves of the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, etc.; and Ephesians 4: To put off, according to former conversation, the old man; likewise: Putting away lying, speak ye the truth, etc.
The ninth, from that of Colossians 3: Mortify your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, etc. Luther gathers hence that the justified still have those members of the old Adam, which blessed Paul says are sins. I answer: by the members which are upon the earth is understood concupiscence, which is called the law of the members, Romans 7; and the same members are called fornication, envy, etc., because the cause of all these is concupiscence, when assent is given to it. Now the justified are commanded to mortify these their members, lest perchance, by alluring, they draw to consent — which is the same as what is said in Romans 6: Let not sin reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. And that the justified no longer have those sins which concupiscence brings forth when it is obeyed, the same Apostle teaches in the same place, subjoining: In which you also walked some time.
The tenth the same Luther takes from that of Hebrews 12: Laying aside every weight and the sin which surrounds us. I answer: the Apostle does not call (as Luther believed) the surrounding sin the concupiscence inwardly inhering. For since that cannot be laid aside, he would exhort in vain to laying it aside. And moreover blessed Paul by the surrounding sin understands without doubt something extrinsic, as almost all the expositors teach; but concupiscence is not something extrinsic, but a thing most internal. From which is also refuted the exposition of Beza, in the annotations on this place, where by the surrounding sin he understands the depravity of nature. The Apostle, then, draws a metaphor from those who run or contend in the stadium, who have two things chiefly to guard against: that they be not weighed down by any burden, and that they be not hindered in the contest or course by any obstacle: Laying aside, says he, every weight, and the sin which surrounds us, let us run to the fight set before us, etc. And by the weight the expositors understand the empty cares of temporal things; by the surrounding sin they understand the occasions and dangers of sin, or the sins themselves, which lie in wait for us on every side. For the Greek word signifies that which easily surrounds and besieges — such as are the things that are thrust upon us on every side through the senses of the body, by which we are most easily captured unless we most diligently beware. And blessed Paul elegantly opposes the surrounding sin to the cloud of the examples of the Saints set around us; for he had said: And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head (set around us), laying aside every weight, etc. — wishing to signify that we are so surrounded on every side by the examples of the holy Fathers, as we are surrounded by dangers and occasions of sinning, that, looking to those examples, we can shake off all the darts of the adversary. From which we understand that what we said above is true: that by the surrounding sin cannot be understood the concupiscence implanted in us, but temptations from without — as the examples of the Saints, which Paul opposes to the surrounding sin, are external.
The eleventh the same Luther takes, in the assertion of article 3, from that of James 1: That we might be some beginning of his creature. For Luther philosophizes that we are called a beginning because we are imperfectly justified, and sin always remains in us in some part — as if it were said: we are a certain inchoation, not a completion; partly just, partly sinners. I answer: the Greek word in James, by the consent of all, is not opposed to completion, but signifies the primary and chief; wherefore many render, even of the adversaries, “that we might be the firstfruits of his creatures.” Blessed James, then, will have the saints and elect to be the firstfruits — that is, the most perfect part — of the creature. Otherwise, if Luther's opinion were true, Christ himself would have risen not perfectly, but only inchoately. For in 1 Corinthians 15, where we read: Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep; and again: All shall be made alive. But every one in his own order: the firstfruits, Christ; then they that are of Christ — in each place, for the word firstfruits, there is in the Greek the same word which (as we said) James uses when he says: That we might be some beginning of his creature.
The twelfth the same Luther takes from that of 1 John 1: If we say that we have no sin — where he notes that it is not said, “we have had,” but “we have”; but there is no sin always remaining in us except concupiscence. I answer: blessed John speaks of actual sins, but daily and small ones, which are most frequent, as St. Augustine teaches, tractate 1 on the epistle of John; the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 36; and everywhere else. Like is that sentence of blessed James, chapter 3: In many things we all offend — where nevertheless it is more clearly explained that these are actual sins, not original. Add that it can happen that, at least for a short time, someone lack all sin, even venial; yet because Job truly says, chapter 9: Although I should be simple, even this my soul shall be ignorant of — therefore no one can affirm of himself that he has no sin. Wherefore blessed John rightly does not say: If we say that someone has no sin; but: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. Chemnitz, in the Examination of the Council, page 514, shows himself plainly ridiculous concerning this place. For he cries out that it is a huge blasphemy if we say that this place is to be understood of actual sins — since, if it were so, that sentence would by no means pertain to infants and sleepers. As if, forsooth, infants and sleepers ever said that they have no sin! Does not John himself, when he says “If we say,” testify most openly that he speaks only of those who, having the use of speech and reason, falsely pronounce themselves to be what they are not? — which certainly infants and sleepers cannot do.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI. Solvuntur objectiones ex aliis Scripturae locis depromptae. Constitui loca omnia breviter explicare, qua; proferunt adversarii ad probandum concupicentiam ex natura sua esse pecca¬ tum. Igitur praeter loca illa ex epist. ad Rom. quae sunt a nobis superiore capite explicata, haec etiam addunt. Primum proferunt Kemnitius, et alii testi¬ monium ex Genesi cap. vi. et vm. ubi dici¬ tur : Cuncta cogitatio cordis humani intenta ad malum omni tempore. Hebraice autem di¬ citur, ipsum figmentum cordis humani totum, et semper esse malum (3). Respondeo, locus ille Geneseos similis videtur ei loco, quem proxime explicuimus ex cap. 8. ad Roman. describit enim Moses ingenium illorum, qui vivebant tempore Noe, ac dicit omnes illos secundum carnem ambulasse, et quae carnis sunt tantum cogitare, et sapere consuevisse Itaque dicitur figmentum cordis, sive (ut ha¬ betur cap. 6.) figmentum cogitationum cor¬ dis totum, et semper malum, quia nihil fere homines illi cogitabant, nisi quod ad volu¬ ptatem, vel utilitatem carnis pertineret. * (f) I Rom. VII, 18 — (2) Rom. VIII, 4 et seqq. - (3) Gen. VI, 5. CAPUT XI. m Sed hoc peccatum erat actuale, non origi¬ nale, nisi forte, ut Latini codices habent, ad¬ mittant adversarii cogitationem cordis ho¬ minum illorum, non tam fuisse actu malam, quam pronam ad malum. Illam enim proni- tatem ad malum concedimus esse vulnus ex peccato originali relictum, sed negamus esse proprie peccatum, nisi in actum volunta¬ rium pnodeat. Tum vero peccatum quidem esse, sed actuale, non originale, ut saipc jam diximus et probavimus. Secundum, ex Psalm. xviii : Delicta quis intelligit ? et Psalm. l : Cor mundum crea in me Deus (i). Haec duo loca producit Lu- therus in assert. 2. articuli, ut probet homi¬ nes etiam justificatos semper habere delicta, et cor immundum. Quod non potest esse nisi ratione concupiscentiae, quae remanet in ju¬ stificatis usque ad mortem. Respondeo : haec loca non pertinent ullo modo ad peccatum originale, neque ad concupiscentiam, quae remanet post justificationem, tum quia in justificatione peccata omnia remittuntur , tum quia concupiscentia non est res osculta, aut obscura, ut dicendum sit, Delicta quis intelligit? tum denique quia non opus est orare pro concupiscentia, aut ejus motibus involuntariis expiandis , ut S. Augustinus docet in epist. 200. supra citata. Loquitur igitur David de peccatis actuali¬ bus, sive venialibus, quibus raro caremus, sive mortalibus occultis, et de quibus non omnino certi sumus, an sint nobis remissa. Itaque David, quamvis justificatum se esse speraret, recte tamen dicebat : Delicta quis intelligit ? ab occultis munda me , Domine. Et: Cor mundum crea in me Deus. Petebat enim mundari cor suum a maculis quotidianis, vel etiam a gravioribus, si forte esset iis quoque ignoranter inquinatus. Tertium ex Hierem. xvil : Pravum est cor hominis (2). At cordis pravitatem quis neget, inquit Confessio Saxonica, vere esse pecca¬ tum ? Respondeo, pravum cor apud Hierc- miam non est cor malum, sive inquinatum peccatis, sed callidum, ac difficile, ut pene¬ tretur. Nam vox Hebraja est tjpp non yi un¬ de etiam Septuaginta verterunt [3ap0s?a x«p- 5(x, cor profundum. Et consonat vocabulum sequens, et incrustabile. Sed etiamsi intelli- gamus, cor hominis malum appellari, id ita accipiendum erit, quasi dictum sit, pronum ex natura corrupta ad malum. Pronitas au¬ tem non est proprie peccatum, ut saepe dixi¬ mus. Denique loquitur Propheta de impiis, quorum cor pravum , et immundum esse non negamus, cum e contrario de justis di¬ catur, Matth. v : Beati mundo corde (3). Et I Timoth. i : Finis praecepti charitas de corde puro elc. (3). Et Act. xv : Fide purificans corda eorum. Quartum ex Matth. vi : « Sola enim oratio dominica (inquit Lutherus in assertione art. 2.) omnes concludit sub peccato. Nam qui orat ut fiat voluntas Dei, fatetur se non fe¬ cere voluntatem Dei, qui petit, ut sanctifice¬ tur nomen Dei, agnoscit se polluere nomen Dei ; qui cupit, ut adveniat regnum Dei, in¬ telligit se sub regno esse diaboli. » Respon¬ deo : inanissima est objectio. Nam (ut S. Cy¬ prianus recte exponit in sermone de oratio¬ ne Dominica) « sanctificari petimus nomen Dei in nobis », ut qui per baptismum sancti- ficati sumus, in eo quod esse coepimus, per¬ severemus. Cupimus « ut adveniat regnum Dei, » quod post resurrectionem et judicium expectamus, ut qui in praesenti vita Christo compatimur, in futura cum illo regnemus. Oramus, « ut fiat voluntas Dei in terra, sicut fit in coelo, » ut infideles, qui terreni adhuc sunt, per fidem voluntatem Dei faciant, sicut eam faciunt fideles, qui coelestes per eam- dem fidem jam esse coeperunt. Denique oratio Dominica usque adeo non convincit, in nobis perpetuo haerere origina¬ le peccatum, ut Lutherus somniat; ut etiam Christus, qui sine controversia nullum omni¬ no peccatum habuit, oraverit, ut fieret vo¬ luntas Dei, Matth. xxvi. et Augustinus dicat in epist. 200. et alibi nobis orationem illam Dominicam : Dimitte nobis debita nostra , non fore necessariam si nullum aliud haberemus originale peccatum. Quintum ex Matth. xiii. et Luc. x : « Ubi duabus parabolis » (inquit Lutherus loco ci¬ tato) « ostendit Dominus non continuo ho¬ minem liberari ab omni peccato, sed paula- tim, ac per hoc, semper remanere aliquid peccati purgandum. » Prior parabola est de fermento misso in sata tria, quae paulatim fermentata sunt. Posterior est de Samarita¬ no, qui hominem a latronibus vulneratum duxit in stabulum, et plagas ejus non in mo¬ mento curavit, sed paulatim curari voluit. Respondeo : parabolae istae nihil juvant causam Lutheri. Nam ut S. Augustinus recte (1) Psal. XVIII, 13. Psal. L, 12. — (2) Hier. XVII, 9. — (3) Matth. V, 8; 4 Tim. I, 5. Act. XV, 9. LIBER V. docet lib. xiv de Trinit. cap. 17. ct alibi, cum Scripturae significant, hominem paula- tim curari, et proficere, non loquuntur de remissione peccatorum, sed de curatione languoris ex peccato relicti. Sicut enim aliud est telum de corpore eruere , aliud vulnus per telum inflictum sanare, sic etiam aliud est peccatum tollere, quod fit in baptismo aliud vulnus ex peccato factum, id est, con¬ cupiscentiam omnino sanare, quod fit paula- tim dum imus de virtute in virtutem. Sed Lutherus causam cum effectu, id est, pecca¬ tum originis cum vulneribus ex eo natis confundit. Sextum ducit Lutherus ex cap. 15. Joan- nis, ubi dicit, discipulos esse purgandos, quos tamen cap. 13. dixerat esse mundos. Hinc enim sequitur, post justificationem ad¬ huc remanere peccata. Respondeo, purga¬ tio in hominibus justificatis necessaria qui¬ dem est, sed propter peccata actualia, ac praesertim venialia, quae quotidie subrepunt, non propter originale, quod perfecte remit¬ titur in baptismo. Vide Augustinum tract. 80. in Joannem. Septimum sumit ex illo ad Galat. v : Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum (1). Sed jam supra responsum est, concupiscentiam istam non esse proprie peccatum, dum ei spiritus reluctatur, quia non est nisi in carne, quae se¬ des peccati esse non potest. Verum enim pec¬ catum non in carne, sed in mente quaeri debet. Octavum ex illo ad Ephes. iv : Renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae (2). Non juberet Apo¬ stolus jam renatis (ut objiciunt Lutherus et Calvinus) ut renovarentur, nisi in eis vetu¬ stas aliqua superesset. Vetustas autem pec¬ catum est, ex primo homine contractum, sicut novitas gratia est secundi hominis lar¬ gitate donata. Respondeo : vetustas in Scri¬ pturis duobus modis accipitur. Primo, pro peccato originis. Secundo, pro malis ex pec¬ cato relictis. Et ideo potest dici homo, et perfecte renovatus per lavacrum regenera¬ tionis et renovationis Spiritus sancti, ut di¬ citur ad Tit. 3. et tamen egere renovatione, et renovari de die in diem. Hinc S. Augustinus lib. vi. in Julianum cap. 5 : « Exponens, inquit, verba mea non se¬ cundum meum sensum, sed secundum do¬ lum tuum, dixisse me affirmas, quod gratia non perfecte Jiominem novum faciat. Non hoc dico, attende quod dico. Gratia perfe¬ cte hominem novum facit. » Et mox : « Nunc etiam perfecte innovat hominem, quantum attinet ad liberationem ab omnibus omnino peccatis, non quantum ad liberationem ab omnibus malis. » Adde quod vetustas, et no¬ vitas dicuntur etiam in Scripturis de pecca¬ tis actualibus, et malis habitibus inde con¬ tractis, et liberatione ab iisdem. Sic^enim ac¬ cipienda videntur qmc dicit Apostolus ab Golossens. m : 'Expoliantes vos veterem ho¬ minem cum actibus suis, et induentes novum, etc. Et ad Ephes. iv : Deponite vos secundum pristinam conversationem veterem hominem. Item : Deponentes mendacium, loquimini veri¬ tatem etc (3). Nonum ex illo Colossens. hi : Mortificate membra vestra, quae sunt super terram : for¬ nicationem, immunditiam, etc. (4). Colligit hinc Lutherus, justificatos adhuc habere membra ista veteris Adami, quae B. Paulus peccata esse dicit. Respondeo : per membra, quae super terram sunt, intelligitur concupiscen¬ tia, quae lex membrorum dicitur Rom. v ; eadem autem membra vocantur fornicatio, invidia, etc., quia causa istorum omnium est concupiscentia, dum ei praebetur assensus. Jubentur autem justificati mortificare haec sua membra, ne forte illiciendo ad consen¬ sum trahant. Quod est idem cum eo, quod dicitur ad Roman. vi : Non regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore ad obediendum con¬ cupiscentiis ejus (3). Justificatos autem non habere jam illa peccata, quae parit concupi¬ scentia, cum illi obeditur, docet idem Apo¬ stolus ibidem subjungens, in quibus et vos ambulastis aliquando. Decimum sumit idem Lutherus ex illo llebr. xir : Deponentes omne pondus, et cir¬ cumstans nos peccatum (6). Respondeo, non vocat Apostolus (ut Lutherus credidit) cir¬ cumstans peccatum concupiscentiam penitus inhaerentem. Nam cum ea deponi non pos¬ sit, frustra hortaretur ad eam deponendam. Et praeterea B. Paulus per circumstans pec¬ catum intelligit sine dubio aliquid extrinse- cum, ut omnes fere expositores docent. Concupiscentia autem non est quid extrinse- cum, sed res maxime interna. Ex quibus etiam refellitur expositio Bezac in annotat, ad hunc locum. Ubi per circumstans peccatum intelligit naturae pravitatem. (I) Gal. V, 17. — (2) Eph. IV, 23. - (3) Coi. III, 9; Eph IV, 22, 25. - (4) Coi. 111, 5. - (5) Rom. VI. — (0) Ileb. XII, i. CAPUT XII. Igitur Apostolus ducit metaphoram ab iis, qui currunt vel decertant in stadio, quibus duo prajeipue sunt cavenda, ut non graven¬ tur aliquo onere, et ut non impediantur in certamine, vel cursu ab aliquo obstaculo : Deponentes, inquit, omne pondus, et circum¬ stans nos peccatum , curramus ad propositum nobis certamen ctc. Et quidem per pondus iutelligunt expositores curas inanes rerum temporalium ; per circumstans peccatum intel- ligunt occasiones, et pericula peccati, sive ipsa peccata, qua; nobis undique insidiantur. Vox enim Graeca suTtotWcov significat id, quod facile circumdat, et obsidet, qualia suut qua; nobis per sensus corporis undique ingeruntur, a quibus facillime capimur, nisi diligentissime caveamus. Opponit autem B. Paulus eleganter cir¬ cumstans peccatum circumposita; nubi San¬ ctorum exemplorum ; dixerat enim : Haben¬ tes iijitur tantam circumpositam (Gra;ce -3?'.- xoijaevgv) nubem testium, deponentes omne pon¬ dus, ctc. significare volens ita nos uudique circumdari exemplis sanctorum Patrum, sic¬ ut circumdamur periculis, et occasionibus peccandi, ut ad exempla illa aspicientes dis¬ cutere possimus omnia jacula adversarii. Ex quo intelligimus verum esse quod supra diximus, per circumstans peccatum non posse intelligi concupiscentiam nobis insitam, sed extrinsecus tentationes; sicut extrinseca sunt exempla Sanctorum, qua; circumstanti pec¬ cato Paulus opponit. Undecimum sumit idem Lutherus in asser¬ tione art. 3. ex illo Jacobi i : Ut simus ini¬ tium aliquod creaturse ejus (1). Philosophatur enim Lutherus, nos dici initium, quia imper¬ fecte justificamur, et semper aliqua ex parte peccatum in nobis remanet, ac si dictum esset, inchoatio quasdam sumus, non com plementum, parlim justi, partim peccato¬ res. Respondeo : vox Graeca apud Jacobum «rap/r, omnium consensu non opponitur com¬ plemento, sed primarium, et praecipuum si¬ gnificat. Quare multi vertunt, etiam cx ad¬ versariis, ut simus primitiae creaturarum. Vult igitur B.‘Jacobus sanctos, ct electos esse primitias, id est, partem perfectissimam creaturas. Alioqui si Luthcri sententia vera esset, Christus ipse non perfecte, sed incho¬ ate tantum resurrexisset. Nam I. Corinth. xv. ubi legimus : Christus resurrexit, primitix dormientium. Et rursus ; Omnes vivificabun¬ tur, unusquisque in suo ordine (2). Primitke Christus, deinde ii qui sunt Christi, in utro¬ que loco nomine primitiarum in Graeco ha¬ betur dirap/pq, quo vocabulo (ut diximus) utitur Jacobus cum ait : Ut simus initium ali¬ quod creaturae ejus. Duodecimum sumit idem Lutherus exilio, I. Joan. i. Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus (3). Ubi notat, non esse dictum, ha¬ buimus, sed habemus. Nullum est autem pec¬ catum semper in nobis manens, nisi concu¬ piscentia. Respondeo loquitur B. Joamies de peccatis actualibus, sed quotidianis, ac mi¬ nutis, quae frequentissiina sunt, ut docet S. Augustinus tractat. 1. in epist. Joan. lib. de natura et gratia cap. 36. et alibi passim. Similis est sententia illa B. Jacobi cap. m. In multis offendimus omnes (4). Ubi tamen cla¬ rius explicatur, haec esse peccata actualia, non originalia. Adde, posse fieri, ut saltem ad breve tem¬ pus aliquis eareat omni peccato, etiam ve¬ niali ; tamen quia vere Job dicit cap. ix : Si justus fuero, hoc ipsum ignorabit anima mea (o). Ideo de se ipse nemo affirmare po¬ test, se non habere peccatum. Quare recte B. Joamies non ait : Si dixerimus, aliquem non habere peccatum ; sed, Si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seduci¬ mus ctc. Kemnilius in Examiuc Concilii pug. 514. plane ridiculum se ostendit circa hunc locum. Clamat enim ingentem esse blaspliemiain, si hunc locum dc peccatis actualibus intolli- gendum esse dicamus, quoniam si ita esset ad infantes et dormientes ea sententia mini¬ me pertineret. Quasi vero infantes et dor¬ mientes unquam dixerint, se peccatum non habere. Au non ipse Joauncs, cum ait : Si dixerimus, apertissimo testatur, se de iis tan¬ tum loqui, qui sermonis et rationis usum habentes falso pronunciant, se esse quod non sunt? quod c<?ftc infantes ct dormientes fa¬ cere non possunt.