Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book V: The Nature of Original Sin
Chapter 12: Objections from the Fathers 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).
From the Fathers the adversaries gather not a few arguments — especially Chemnitz. For Luther was content with one or two testimonies of Augustine, and those falsely cited; Calvin joined Ambrose to Augustine; Chemnitz produced Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine. Which he did of necessity; for the Council of Trent, session 5, teaches that through baptism is taken away whatever in us has the notion of sin, and that the Catholic Church has never understood the remaining concupiscence to have the true notion of sin. He, then, reprehending this sentence, is bound to show that the Catholic Church held that concupiscence in the reborn is true and proper sin — which he most audaciously promises he will do, the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers being brought forward.
From Cyprian, then, Chemnitz, in the Examination of the Council of Trent, page 481, brings forward into the midst certain words which are in Augustine, book 2 against Julian. Thus Chemnitz speaks: “And Cyprian, in Augustine, bravely resisting the evil motions coming from our origin, says: Let no one flatter himself on a pure and immaculate breast, so that, relying on his own innocence, he think that medicine is not to be applied to the wounds — since it is written: Who shall glory that he hath a chaste heart? or who shall glory that he is clean from sins? But if no one can be without sins, whoever shall say that he is blameless is either proud or foolish.” I answer: incredible is the impudence and wickedness of Chemnitz, for which without doubt he will pay perpetual penalties in gehenna. It is to be known, then, that St. Augustine, in the second book against Julian, had this purpose: to overthrow, from the testimonies of the holy Fathers, five arguments of the Pelagians. For thus he himself speaks at the beginning of the book: “Now those arguments of yours, by which you contend that the first nativity of men is not to be believed bound by original sin, must be convicted by the utterances of the saints.” And presently, enumerating those arguments: “You say,” says he, “that we, by asserting original sin, say that the devil is the maker of men being born; condemn marriage; deny that all sins are remitted in baptism; charge God with the crime of iniquity; and thrust in despair of perfection. For you contend that all these things are consequences, if we believe that little ones are born bound by the sin of the first man.” Then through the whole book he recites various testimonies of the holy Fathers, by which he overthrows now one, now another, now several together of the aforesaid arguments. He brings, then, among the rest, a testimony of Cyprian, to overthrow the fifth argument and prove that a man can live perfectly, even though he contracted original sin, and, that being remitted through baptism, concupiscence has been left in our members, with which, while we live, we must perpetually fight. The testimony of Cyprian, from the book On Mortality, is this: “We have a combat with avarice, with immodesty, with anger, with ambition; with carnal vices, with worldly enticements there is an assiduous and troublesome wrestling,” etc. After this testimony Augustine subjoins: “But far be it that we should judge St. Cyprian avaricious, because with avarice; or immodest, because with immodesty; or subject to anger, because with anger; or ambitious, because with ambition; or carnal, because with carnal vices; or a lover of this world, because with worldly enticements he was in conflict. Nay rather, he was none of these for this very reason: that he bravely resisted these evil motions, coming partly from origin, partly from custom.” By these words Augustine teaches that St. Cyprian was a conqueror of vices, and that those evil motions coming from the vitiated origin not only were not true sins in him, but rather were the whetstone of virtue and the matter of a glorious victory. But because there was danger lest the Pelagians should gather from this response of St. Augustine that a man can live so perfectly as never to slip into any venial sin — which was another of their errors — therefore the same Augustine straightway subjoins: “Nor yet, in so perilous and toilsome a contest, was he struck by no hostile dart; since he says, in his epistle on almsdeeds: Let no one flatter himself on a pure and immaculate breast, so that, relying on his own innocence, he think not that medicine is to be applied to the wounds — since it is written: Who shall glory that he hath a chaste heart? etc.” And so St. Augustine, from the testimonies of Cyprian cited even by Chemnitz, confutes two errors which are at this time common to Chemnitz himself with all the Lutherans. One is that he who has had original sin cannot work true justice; for the Lutherans judge all our works to be sins, because they are contaminated by concupiscence, which is, in their opinion, truly and properly sin. The other is that no sin is by its nature venial, but all are of themselves mortal. Hence, then, appears the manifold impudence of Chemnitz. For first, he so joined those words of St. Augustine — “these evil motions coming from origin” — with those of Cyprian — “Let no one flatter himself on a pure and immaculate breast,” etc. — that Cyprian may seem to say that those evil motions are true sins, even when they are resisted. But the former words are not Cyprian's, but Augustine's, who (as we have already said) proves from Cyprian's book On Mortality that he who resists the evil motions attains true virtue, and not only does not sin, but even merits a crown. The latter words are Cyprian's, but from another book — from the tractate, namely, on almsgiving — where Cyprian shows that men, however just and perfect, are not free of venial sins, and therefore need the remedy of almsdeeds. Next, Chemnitz not only wrongly usurps the testimonies of the holy Fathers, but even with incredible audacity adduces for himself those very ones by which his own error, as we have now shown, is manifestly and plainly convicted. Finally, he adds to his impudence when, on account of these testimonies of Cyprian, and another of Hilary, which we shall presently cite, he sounds his triumph in these words: “But I beseech the reader to compare these words of Hilary and Cyprian with the Tridentine decree, which affirms that in baptism whatever has the true and proper notion of sin is so taken away that the reborn are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless. The Fathers certainly say the contrary; and yet the Tridentines are not afraid to glory in the consent of the Catholic Church.” Nay, the heretic is not afraid to pervert the words of the Fathers, and, when he has fallen into the pit which he made, so to glory as if he had cast down others. But let us see what Chemnitz brings forward from Hilary.
Hilary, says Chemnitz, “calls our bodies the matter of all vices; the evils which are in us, malice through the condition of our origin. And where Hilary speaks expressly of the reborn, who fight against concupiscence, he says: mindful that those very bodies of ours are the matter of all vices, for which, polluted and filthy, we possess nothing clean in us, nothing innocent.” And a little after: “Augustine also cites this sentence of Hilary: That we, in this habitation of an earthly and dead body, cannot be clean, unless through the washing of the heavenly mercy we obtain cleansing, after the change of the resurrection, the nature of our earthly body being made more glorious.” Again: “He taught that even to the Apostles themselves — though already cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith — malice was not wanting, through the condition of the origin common to us, saying: If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children.” I answer: in the first testimony adduced from Hilary we have that our bodies, on account of the disease of concupiscence, are the matter of all vices — because concupiscence, although it is not itself properly sin, is nevertheless the cause of sins, while it goads and impels to sins; and, so far as depends on concupiscence, nothing is clean, nothing innocent in us, but we are polluted and filthy with various sins. But although the matter stands so, yet if, helped by the grace of the Lord, we bravely resist concupiscence, we not only are not polluted or befouled, but obtain a crown, and by this victory are cleansed from sins otherwise perpetrated. For thus speaks the same Hilary, cited by Augustine in the same place: “So great and so admirable is the goodness of God's mercy toward us that, through him by whom, in the offense of Adam, we lost the nobility of that first and blessed creation, through him again we deserve to obtain what we lost. For then the devil, envying, harmed; but now, when he strives to harm, he is conquered. For through the weakness of our flesh he plies all the darts of his power: when he kindles to wantonness, entices to drunkenness, when he goads to hatreds, when he provokes to avarice, when he equips for slaughters, when he exasperates to curses. But when, through the weakness of the mind, the creeping incitements of all these are pressed down, we are cleansed from sin through the glory of this victory.” And hence he deduces, by way of conclusion, those words which Chemnitz cites: “Mindful, therefore, and conscious that those very bodies of ours are the matter of all vices, for which, polluted and filthy, we possess nothing clean in us, nothing innocent — let us rejoice that we have an enemy, in whose contest we may fight in a certain war of our striving.” Where Hilary does not say that we are absolutely polluted and filthy, and possess nothing clean, nothing innocent; but that, on the side of concupiscence, which is the matter of vices and always incites to sins, we can have nothing but pollution and filth; yet, on the side of grace, through which we conquer the incitements of concupiscence, we not only escape pollution and filth, but are even the more cleansed and purged. Otherwise, if we were absolutely polluted and filthy even when we resist concupiscence (as Chemnitz teaches), Hilary would not say that we should rejoice that we have an enemy (which words Chemnitz studiously passed over); for if nonetheless we are polluted and befouled, and possess nothing clean, nothing innocent, certainly we should not rejoice, but weep. Nor would the same Hilary deduce those words — “Mindful, therefore, etc.” — as a conclusion from those words, “we are cleansed from sin through the glory of this victory”; for how are we cleansed through the victory, if, even while we fight, we possess nothing clean, nothing innocent? And so much for the first testimony. The second and third testimony of the same Hilary St. Augustine refers to venial sins. For after he had proved from Cyprian that just men in this life need cleansing from venial sins, he proves the same from Hilary, two testimonies being adduced, which are those that Chemnitz cited. For although the reborn are in very truth pure, just, and innocent (as the Council of Trent speaks), and clean from all past sins, whether original or actual, through baptism, yet in this life, which is wholly temptation, they cannot live a long time without some new filth of sin, at least daily and venial — whence they can be called unclean and evil. We could moreover expound these two testimonies of Hilary of the proneness to evil, which, though it is not sin of the proper name, is nevertheless a certain evil, and can be called uncleanness and malice. Certainly those words of the Lord — If you, being evil, Matthew 7 — which Hilary cites, can altogether conveniently be referred to the proneness, so that the sense is: If you, who from corrupted nature are prone to evil, know how to give good things to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father, who from his nature is prone to benignity, give the good spirit to them that ask him?
There follows the testimony of St. Ambrose, which Calvin and Chemnitz cite from the same St. Augustine, book 2 against Julian. But let us hear the very words of Chemnitz: “From Ambrose,” says he, “Augustine calls them our vices, which resist the law of the mind from the law of sin. Their guilt indeed perished in baptism, but the weakness remained.” Likewise: “Ambrose calls it iniquity — not that which is blotted out in Baptism (for that was of the sins which we did, which have all been remitted, and altogether are not); but this law of sin — the guilt of which, though it remains, was remitted in the sacred font — he therefore called iniquity, because it is iniquitous that the flesh should lust against the spirit, although in our renewal justice is present.” In the same place: “Ambrose says that there is a certain delectation adverse to the divine commandment, and that of it Paul speaks when he says: I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind. Ambrose, then, renders and expresses our opinion in the very selfsame words.” I answer: the whole objection of Chemnitz is set in three words — namely, that St. Ambrose calls the concupiscence which is in the reborn “a vice, an iniquity, and a delectation adverse to the commandment of God.” As to the word vice, I say that by that word is signified every corruption and languor, even if properly it is not sin. And this is not my response, but Augustine's. For thus he himself speaks in the same second book against Julian: “Dost thou not yet discern, dost thou not yet perceive, dost thou not yet observe, both that in baptism there is made a remission of all sins, and that with the baptized there remains, as it were, a civil war of the interior vices? For such vices are not now to be called sins, if concupiscence do not draw the spirit to unlawful works, and conceive, and bring forth sin. They are passions, they are vices — to be bridled, to be restrained, to be healed; but while they are being cured, they are troublesome.” As to the word iniquity, I say that concupiscence is called iniquity by Ambrose because it is a certain disorder and perversity of nature against the order set in the first creation — yet not properly sin, since such perversity is not in the will, which alone is capable of sin properly so called, but in the flesh. For even now, if a horse impatient of the bridle throw its rider, it is an iniquity, because according to the order set by God in creation all living creatures ought to obey man; yet because the horse is properly capable neither of virtue nor of vice, that is not iniquity except materially and improperly. That iniquity was understood in this way, in the words of Ambrose, by Augustine, is plain from three things. First, because he says that this iniquity is in the flesh, not in the mind: “He therefore called it iniquity, because it is iniquitous that the flesh should lust against the spirit.” Second, because he testifies that with this iniquity justice is in the same man: “although,” says he, “in our renewal justice is present.” But iniquity properly so called cannot dwell with justice in the same man. Third, because the same Augustine, tractate 41 on John, says that through baptism all iniquity is taken away, and only weakness remains. From which it follows that the remaining concupiscence is not properly iniquity, but weakness. Add that St. Ambrose, in the book On Isaac and the Soul, chapter 8 — whence the testimony of which we treat was taken — signifies openly enough that by iniquity he understands a passion of the body which lacks a proper name, and can be called iniquity by a trope, because it leads through to iniquity. For he compares the soul to a chariot, Christ to the charioteer, the four cardinal virtues to four good horses, the four passions to four evil horses: “The good horses,” says he, “are the virtues of the soul; the evil horses, the passions of the body. The good horses: prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice; the evil horses: wrath, concupiscence, fear, iniquity.” Where thou seest opposed to prudence not the vice of folly, but the passion of wrath; to temperance and fortitude thou seest opposed not the contrary vices, but passions; so also to justice he opposes not the contrary vice, which is iniquity properly so called, but a certain corporal passion, which is not iniquity except improperly. As to the last phrase — “a delectation adverse to the divine commandment” — we answered copiously above, where we demonstrated that involuntary concupiscence is contrary to the law of God only materially — that is, as object, not as act. For the law properly forbids the man himself to consent to concupiscence, or to the delectation of the flesh; and therefore the consent is properly an act contrary to the law of God; but the delectation of the flesh alone, the spirit resisting, is not contrary except materially — and thereby neither is it sin, except materially. See chapter 10, in the refutation of the fourth objection. From these things it can be understood how empty is that boast of Chemnitz: “Ambrose, then, renders and expresses our opinion in the very selfsame words.” For the very selfsame words of the Lutherans are these: that concupiscence in the reborn, of itself, from itself, and from its nature, is true and properly-so-called sin, which can make guilty and damn forever, if God will to impute it; and that therefore there is no true justice in man, but all his good works are mortal sins, and the like — which are found neither in Ambrose nor in any other holy Father.
In the fourth place Chemnitz produces St. Jerome: “Jerome,” says he, “on chapter 7 of Matthew, says that propassion is the first motions, when from the beginning they move and irritate; but that it is passion after the consent of the will has come to them; and of the first motions he says that, although they have fault, yet they are not held by crime.” I answer: St. Jerome, in the commentary on chapter 5 of Matthew (for this is the place, not chapter 7, as Chemnitz falsely cites), speaks not of concupiscence as it signifies the proneness, which the adversaries will have to be the sin of origin, but of the act of concupiscence; and he distinguishes a twofold act. One plainly voluntary — and this he calls “passion and crime,” that is, lethal sin, as when one consents to the desire of adultery; and this without doubt is sin, but actual, not original. The other, not altogether voluntary nor altogether involuntary — as when one, a woman being seen, is titillated with a delectation which, namely, he could have guarded against, had he been willing diligently to keep his eyes; and this he calls “propassion,” and says that it has the fault of vice, yet not crime — that is, that it is venial sin, not mortal. Which indeed is most true, and manifestly fights with the opinion of Chemnitz and the other Lutherans, who are ignorant of the difference between mortal and venial sin. But for the opinion of Chemnitz this testimony of St. Jerome can be brought with no color. For he, with the other Lutherans, either frees the concupiscence of the reborn from all fault, if fault be taken for guilt; or attributes to it mortal and damning fault, if fault be taken for that which by its nature can be imputed and damn. But St. Jerome most openly distinguishes between “the fault of vice” and “crime,” and to the propassion attributes only “the fault of vice,” which pollutes in some manner but does not damn from its nature, since it is not crime; while to “passion” — that is, to altogether voluntary concupiscence — he attributes “crime,” which makes one guilty of eternal fire. But if, as some will have it, in the text of blessed Jerome there is read not “the fault of vice” but “of beginning,” then the sense will be that the first motions are not sins, but the origin and cause of sins.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII. Solvuntur objectiones ex Putribus. Ex Patribus adversarii non pauca argu¬ menta colligant; praesertim Kemnilius. Nam (i)Jacob. I, 18. - (2) 1 Cor. XV, 20. — (3) Joan. I, 8. — (4) Jacob. III. 2. — (5) Job. IX, 21. Tom. V. 28 42 6 LIBER V. Lutherus uno vel altero Augustini testimonio, coque falso citato contentus fuit. Calvinus Ambrosium Augustino adjunxit. Kemnitius Cyprianum, Hilarium, Ambrosium, Hiero¬ nymum, Augustinum produxit. Id quod ne¬ cessario fecit; nam Concil. Trident. sess. 5, docet, per baptismum tolli quidquid in no¬ bis peccati rationem habet ; et concupiscen¬ tiam reliquam Ecclesiam Catholicam nun¬ quam intellexisse, veram peccati rationem habere. Ille igitur reprehendens hanc sen¬ tentiam tenetur ostendere, Ecclesiam Catho¬ licam sensisse, concupiscentiam in renatis verum, ac proprium esse peccatum ; quod se facturum prolatis vetustissimorum Pa¬ trum testimoniis, audacissime pollicetur. Ex Cypriano igitur Kemnitius in Examine Concil. Trid. pag. 481. quaedam verba pro¬ fert in medium, quee sunt apud Augustinum lib. ii. in Jnlian. Sic autem Kemnitius lo¬ quitur : « Et Cyprianus apud Augustinum malis motibus de origine venientibus fortiter resistens, inquit : Ne quisquam sibi de pu¬ ro, atque immaculo pectore blandiatur, ut innocentia sua fretus, medicinam non pu¬ tet adhibendam esse vulneribus, cum scri¬ ptum sit, Quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor ? aut quis gloriabitur mundum se esse a peccatis? Si autem nemo sine peccatis esse potest, quisquis se inculpatum esse dixerit, aut superbus, aut stultus est. >; Respondeo, incredibilem esse Remnitii impudentiam et nequitiam, cujus perpetuas in gehenna sine dubio poenas luet. Sciendum igitur est S. Augustino in 2. lib. advers. Julian. id propositum fuisse, ut ex testimoniis sanctorum Patrum everteret quin¬ que argumenta Pelagianorum. Sic enim ipse loquitur initio libri : « Nunc argumenta ipsa vestra, quibus agitis, ne hominum prima na¬ tivitas originali peccato credatur obstricta, eloquiis sunt redarguenda sanctorum ». Et mox, enumerans illa argumenta : « Dicitis, inquit, nos asserendo originale peccatum, diabolum dicere hominum nascentium con¬ ditorem, damnare nuptias, negare in ba¬ ptismo dimitti universa peccata, Deum cri¬ mine iniquitatis arguere, desperationem per¬ fectionis ingerere, Ha;c quippe omnia con¬ sequentia esse contenditis, si credamus na¬ sci parvulos, peccato primi hominis obliga¬ tos. » Deinde toto libro recitat sanctorum Patrum varia testimonia, quibus modo li¬ num, modo alterum, modo plura simul ex prtedictis argumentis evertit. Adfert igitur preeter cratera, testimonium Cypriani* ut e- vertat argumentum quintum, ac probet, posse hominem perfecte vivere, etiamsi pec¬ catum originale contraxerit, et, eo per ba¬ ptismum remisso, relicta sit in membris no¬ stris concupiscentia, cum qua sit perpetuo, dum vivimus, depugnandum. Testimonium Cypriani ex libro de morta¬ litate hoc est : « Cum avaritia nobis, inquit, cum impudicitia, cum ira, cum ambitione congressio est, cum carnalibus vitiis, cum illecebris sracularibus assidua et molesta lu¬ ctatio est, etc. » Post hoc testimonium sub¬ jungit Augustinus : « Absit autem ut S. Cy¬ prianum aut avarum existimemus, quia cum avaritia ; aut impudicum, quia cum impu¬ dicitia ; aut irae subditum, quia cum ira ; aut ambitiosum, quia cum ambitione ; aut carnalem, quia cum carnalibus vitiis; aut sacculi hujus amatorem, quia cum illecebris saecularibus confligebat. Imo vero ideo ni¬ hil eorum erat, quia his malis motibus par- tim de origine, partim de consuetudine ve¬ nientibus fortiter resistebat. Ilis verbis do¬ cet Augustinus, S. Cyprianum victorem fuis¬ se vitiorum, et malos illos motus de vitiata origine venientes, non solum non fuisse in eo vera peccata, sed potius cotem fuisse vir¬ tutis et materiam gloriosae victoriae. Craterum quia periculum erat, ne Pela¬ giam colligerent ex hac S. Augustini re¬ sponsione, posse hominem ita perfecte vive¬ re, ut in nullum unquam laberetur veniale peccatum, qui erat alius ipsorum error : id¬ circo idem Augustinus subjungit continuo : « Nec ideo tamen in tam periculoso, laborio- soque certamine nullo telo feriebatur hostili, cum dicat in epistola sua de eleemosinfs, Ne quisquam sibi de puro, atque immaculato pectore blandiatur, ut innocentia sua fretus non putet medicinam adhibendam esse vul¬ neribus ; cum scriptum sit : Quis gloriabi¬ tur castum se habere cor ? etc. » Itaque S. Augustinus ex testimoniis Cy¬ priani a Kemnitio etiam citatis, duos confu¬ tat errores, qui sunt hoc tempore ipsi Kem¬ nitio cum Lutheranis omnibus communes. Unus est, non posse eum, qui habuerit ori¬ ginale peccatum, veram justitiam operari. Existimant enim Lutherani omnia opera no¬ stra esse peccata, quia contaminentur a con¬ cupiscentia, qua? est, ipsorum sententia, vere proprieque peccatum. Alter est, nullum esse peccatura natura sua veniale, sed omnia per se esse mortalia. CAPUT XII. Hinc igitur apparet multiplex Kemnitii im¬ pudentia. Primum enim ita conjunxit verba illa S. Augustini : « His malis motibus de o- rigine venientibus, » cum illis Cypriani : « Ne quisquam sibi de puro, atque immacula¬ to pectore blandiatur, etc. » ut videatur Cyprianus dicere, malos illos motus vera esse peccata, etiam cum eis resistitur. At priora verba non sunt Cypriani, sed Augustini, qui (ut jam diximus) probat ex libro Cypriani de mortalitate, eum qui re¬ sistit malis motibus veram virtutem asse¬ qui, et non solum non peccare, sed etiam coronam mereri. Posteriora verba sunt Cy¬ priani, sed ex alio libro, ex tractatu videli¬ cet de eleemosyna, ubi Cyprianus ostendit, homines quantumvis justos et perfectos non carere peccatis venialibus, et ideo eleemosy¬ nae pharmaco indigere. Deinde Kemnitius non solum perperam testimonia sanctorum Patrum usurpat, sed etiam incredibili audacia illa ipsa pro se ad¬ ducit, quibus error ipsius, ut jam ostendi¬ mus, manifeste planeque convincitur. Deni¬ que addit ad impudentiam, cura ob luec te¬ stimonia, Cypriani et aliud Hilarii, quod mox citabimus, liis verbis triumphum canit. «Ob¬ secro autem lectorem, ut ha;c Hilarii et Cy¬ priani verba conferat ad decretum Triden¬ ti num, quod affirmat in baptismo ita tolli, quicquid habet veram et propriam rationem peccati, ut renati efficiantur innocentes, im¬ maculati, puri, innoxii. Patres certe contra¬ rium dicunt ; et tamen non verentur Tridcn- tini de consensu Catholica; Ecclesia; gloriari. » Imo non veretur haereticus pervertere ver¬ ba Patrum, et cum ceciderit in foveam, quam fecit, ita gloriari, quasi alios dejecis¬ set. Sed videamus, quid ex Hilario Kemni¬ tius proferat. Hilarius, inquit Kemnitius, «vocat corpo¬ ra nostra omnium vitiorum materiam. Ma¬ la, qua; in nobis sunt, malitiam per condi¬ tionem originis. Et ubi expresse de renatis, qui concupiscentia; repugnant,' Hilarius lo¬ quitur, inquit : memores illa ipsa corpora nostra omnium vitiorum esse materiam, pro qua polluti, et sordidi nihil in nobis mun¬ dum, nihil innocens obtinemus. » Et paulo post : « Augustinus etiam hanc Hilarii sen¬ tentiam citat, Nos in hoc terreni et mortici¬ ni corporis habitaculo, mundos esse non pos¬ se, nisi per ablutionem coelestis misericor¬ diae emundationem consequamur, post de¬ mutationem resurrectionis, terreni corporis 427 nostri effecta gloriosiore natura. » Rursus : « Ipsis, inquit, Apostolis verbo jam licet fi¬ dei emundatis, atque sanctificatis, non dees- se tamen malitiam, per conditionem commu¬ nis nobis originis docuit dicens : Si vos, cum sitis mali, nostis bona data dare filiis ve¬ stris. » Respondeo ; in primo testimonio ex Hila¬ rio adducto habemus, corpora nostra propter morbum concupiscentiae materiem esse om¬ nium vitiorum, quia concupiscentia, quam¬ vis ipsa proprie peccatum non sit, tamen causa est peccatorum, dum ad peccata stimu¬ lat et impellit. Et quantum est ex parte con¬ cupiscentia;, nihil mundum, nihil innocens in nobis est, sed variis peccatis polluti et sor¬ didi sumus. Sed quamvis ita se res habeat, tamen si gratia Domini adjuti fortiter con¬ cupiscentia; resistimus, non solum non pol¬ luimur, aut sordidamur, sed coronam obti¬ nemus, et a peccatis alias perpetratis per hanc victoriam emundamur. Sic enim loqui¬ tur idem Hilarius in eodem loco ab Augu¬ stino citatus : «Tanta, inquit, et tam admira¬ bilis in nos misericordiae Dei bonitas est, ut per quem in Adae offensa generositatem primae, et beata; illius creationis amisimus, per eum rursus id quod amisimus obtinere mereamur : tunc enim diabolus invidens no¬ cuit, nunc autem cum nocere nititur, vinci¬ tur. Movet enim per infirmitatem carnis nostrae omnia potestatis suae tela cum ad lasciviam accendit, ebrietatem illicit, cum ad odia stimulat, cum ad avaritiam provo¬ cat, cum ad caedes instruit, cum ad maledi¬ cta exacerbat. Sed cum per infirmitatem ani¬ mi horum omnium surrepentia incentiva reprimuntur, emundamur a peccato per hu¬ jus victoria; gloriam. « Hinc autem deducit per modum conclusionis verba illa, quae citat Kemnitius : « Memores igitur, inquit, et conscii, illa ipsa corpora nostra omnium vi¬ tiorum esse materiem, pro qua polluti et sordidi nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtinemus; gaudeamus nobis esse hostem, in cujus concertatione quodam concertationis nostrae bello dimicemus. » Ubi non dicit Hilarius nos absolute pollu¬ tos et sordidos esse, et nihil mundum, nihil innocens obtinere ; sed ex parte concupi¬ scentiae, qua; materia est vitiorum, et semper incitat ad peccata, nihil nos nisi pollutionem et sordes habere posse, tamen ex parte gra¬ tiae, per quam vincimus concupiscentiae in¬ centiva non solum pollutionem et sordes 428 LIBER V. evadimus, sed magis etiam emundamur, atque purgamur. Alioquin si absolute polluti, et sordidi essemus, etiam quando resistimus concupiscentia; (ut Kemnitius docet) non di¬ ceret Hilarius, gaudendum nobis esse, quod hostem habeamus (qua; verba studiose Kem¬ nitius prajtermisit) nam si nihilominus pol¬ luimur et sordidamur, et nihil mundum, nihil innocens obtinemus, certe non gauden¬ dum, sed flendum nobis est. Neque verba illa: «Memores igitur etc. » idem Hilarius tamquam conclusionem ex verbis illis dedu¬ ceret, « emundamur a peccato per hujus vi¬ ctoria; gloriam» : quomodo enim emundamur per victoriam, si, etiam pugnantibus nobis nihil mundum, nihil innocens obtinemus? Atque hicccle primo testimonio. Alterum testimonium et tertium ejusdem llilarii S. Augustinus ad peccata venialia re¬ fert. Postquam enim probaverat ex Cypriano homines justos in hac vita indigere munda¬ tione a peccatis venialibus; idem probat ex Hilario, adductis duobus testimoniis, qua; sunt illa, qua; citavit Kemnitius. Quamvis enim renali puri, justi ct innocentes (ut Con¬ cilium Trideut. loquitur) re vera sint, et mundi a peccatis omnibus pneteritis, sive originalibus, sive actualibus per baptismum, tamen in hac vita, qua; lota tentatio est, non possunt longo tempore vivere sine aliqua uoja sorde peccati , saltem quoti¬ diani et venialis, unde immundi et mali dici possunt. Possemus pneterea duo luec llilarii testi¬ monia exponere de pronitate ad malum, qua; tametsi proprii nominis peccatum non sit, tamen malum quoddam est et immundities, ac malitia dici potest. Certe verba illa Domi¬ ni : « Si vos cum silis mali, Mattii, vu. qua; Hilarius citat, omnino commode referri pos¬ sunt ad pronitatem, ut sensus sit : Si vos, qui ex natura corrupta proni estis ad malum, nostis bona dare liliis vestris; quanto ma¬ gis Pater coelestis, qui ex natura sua pronus est ad benignitatem, dabit spiritum bonum petentibus se ? Sequitur testimonium S. Ambrosii, quod Calvinus et Kemnitius ex eodem S. August. lib. H. in Julian. citant. Sed verlm ipsa Kern- nitii audiamus: « Ex Ambrosio, inquit, Au¬ gustinus vocat vitia nostra, quic legi mentis ex lege peccati resistunt. Illorum reatus qui¬ dem in baptismo periit, infirmitas vero man¬ sit. » Item, « Ambrosius vocat iniquitatem, non illam qum deletur iu Baptismo. Illa nam¬ que peccatorum, qua; fecimus, fuit, qua; cuncta remissa sunt, atque omnino non sunt. Istam vero legem peccati, cujus manentis reatus in sacro fonte remissus propterea vocavit iniquitatem, quia iniquum est, ut caro concupiscat adversus spiritum, quamvis adsit in nostra renovatione justitia. » Ibidem : « Ambrosius dicit quamdam delectationem esse divino mundato adversam, et de illa Paulum loqui cum ait : Video aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis mea;. Ambrosius igitur nostram sententiam ipsissimis verbis reddit, et exprimit. Respondeo, tota Kcmnitii objectio in tribus vocibus posita est. Quod videlicet S. Ambro¬ sius vocat concupiscentiam, qiue est in rena¬ tis, « vitium, iniquitatem, et delectationem mandato Dei adversam. » Quod attinet ad vocabulum vitii, dico per eam vocem signi¬ ficari omnem corruptionem et languorem, etiamsi proprie non sit peccatum. Et haec non mea, sed Augustini responsio est. Sic enim ipsi; loquitur in eodem II. lib. in Julia¬ num : c Jam ne discernis, jam nc perspicis, jam ne respicis, et in baptismate fieri om¬ nium remissionem peccatorum, et cum ba¬ ptizatis quasi civile bellum interioium rema¬ nere vitiorum? non enim talia sunt vitio, qua; jam peccata dicenda sint, si ad illicita opera spiritum concupiscentia non trahat, et concipiat , pariatque peccatum ; passiones sunt, vitia sunt, frenenda, cohibenda, sanan¬ da sunt, sed dum curantur, infesta sunt. Quod ad vocem iniquitatis, dico vocari concupiscentiam ab Ambrosio iniquitatem, quia est deordiuatio quantam, et perversitas naturae contra ordinem in prima creatione positum, non tamen proprie peccatum, cuiu ejusmodi perversitas non sit in voluntate, qua; sola capax est peccati proprie dicti, sed in carne. Nam etsi nunc equus freni im¬ patiens dejiciat sessorem, iniquitas est, quia secundum ordinem a Deo in creatione posi¬ tum , debuerunt animantia omnia homini obedire. Quia tamen equus nec virtutis, nec vitii proprie capax est, ea non est iniquitas, nisi materialiter et improprie. Hoc modo intellectam esse verbis Ambro¬ sii ab Augustino iniquitatem, patet ex tribus. Primo, quia dicit, hanc iniquitatem esse in carne, non in mente. Propterea, inquit, vo¬ cavit iniquitatem, quia iniquum est, ut caro concupiscatadversus spiritum. Secundo, quia cum hac iniquitate justitiam in eodem homi¬ ne esse testatur. « Quamvis, inquit, adsit in CAPUT XII. nostra renovatione justitia. » Non potest au¬ tem iniquitas proprie dicta cum justitia in eodem homine commorari. Tertio, quia idem Augustinus tractatu 41. in Joan. dicit, per baptismum tolli omnem iniquitatem, et solum remanere infirmitatem. Ex quo sequitur, ut concupiscentia remanens, non sit proprie iniquitas, sed infirmitas. Adde quod S. Am¬ brosius in lib. de Isaac et anima cap. 8 unde sumptum est testimonium, de quo agimus, satis aperte significat, per iniquitatem se in- lelligerc passionem corporis, qu» caret pro¬ prio nomine, et iniquitas dici potest per tro¬ pum, quia ad iniquitatem perducit. Nam comparat animam currui, Christum aurigae, quatuor virtutes cardinales quatuor bonis equis, quatuorpassior.es quatuor malis equis : « Boni equi, inquit, virtutes sunt anima;, mali equi passiones corporis. Boni equi pru¬ dentia, temperantia, fortitudo, justitia; mali equi iracundia, concupiscentia, timor, ini¬ quitas. » Ubi vides opponi prudenti» non vitium stultitia;, sed passionem iracundiee ; temperanti», et fortitudini opponi vides non vitia contraria, sed passiones ; sic igitur et justitia; non opponit vitium contrarium, qua; est iniquitas proprie dicta, sed passionem quamdam corporalem, qmc non est iniquitas, nisi improprie. Quod attinet ad ultimum vocabulum, id est : « delectationem divino mandato adver¬ sam : » supra copiose respondimus, ubi de¬ monstravimus, concupiscentiam involunta- riamlcgi Deiesse contrariam, solum materiali¬ ter, id est, ut objectum, non ut actum. Lex enim proprie ipsi homini prohibet, ne con¬ sentiat in concupiscentiam, sive carnis dele¬ ctationem. Et ideo consensus est proprie a- clus legi Dei contrarius; delectatio vero solius carnis, spiritu repugnante, non est contraria, nisi materialiter, ac per hoc neque peccatum est, nisi materialiter. Vide cap. 10. in refu¬ ta! ione quarta; objectionis. Ex his intelligi potest, quam vana sit illa Kcmnitii gloriatio : « Ambrosius igitur no¬ stram sententiam ipsissimis verbis reddit et exprimit. » Ipsissima enim verba Lutherano- rum illa sunt, quod concupiscentia in rena¬ lis, per se, ex se, et ex natura sua sit verum et proprie dictum peccatum, quod reum facere et damnare in sternum possit, si Deus impu¬ tare velit, et propterea nulla sit in homine vera justitia, sed omnia ejus opera bona sint pec¬ cata mortalia, et similia, qua; nec in Ambro¬ sio, nec in ullo alio sancto Patre reperiuntur, 129 Quarto loco producit Kemnilius S. Hiero¬ nymum : « Ilierbnymus, inquit, in 7. cap. Matth. dicit irpoitdOcwv naOo? esse primos mo¬ tus, quando ab initio movent et irritant : vero esse, postquam ad illos voluntatis con¬ sensus accesserit, et de primis motibus dicit, quamvis habeant culpam, tamen non teneri crimine. Respondeo : n«3n loquitur S. Hieronymus in commentar, cap. d. Matth. (hic enim est locus, non in cap. 7. ut falso Ivemnitius ci¬ tat) de concupiscentia, ut significat pronita- tem, quam adversarii peccatum originis esse volunt, sed de actu concupiscentia;: et dis¬ tinguit duplicem actum. IJnum plane volun¬ tarium. et hunc vocat « passionem et crimen » id est, peccatum lethale, ut cum quis con¬ sentit desiderio adulterii. Et hoc sine dubio peccatum est, sed actuale, non originale. Alterum non omnino voluntarium, nec om¬ nino involuntarium, et cum quis visa mulie¬ re titillatur delectatione, quam videlicet pnecavere potuisset, si diligenter oculos suos custodire voluisset, et hanc vocat « propas¬ sionem, » ac dicit vitii culpam habere, non tamen crimen, hoc est, peccatum esse ve¬ niale, non mortale. Quod quidem verissimum est, et cum Kemnitii et Lutheranorum c»te- rorum sententia manifeste pugnat, qui dis¬ crimen peccati .mortalis et venialis igno¬ rant. At pro sententia Kemnitii testimonium hoc S. Hieronymi, nullo colore adferri potest. Siquidem ipse cum Lutheranis caderis con¬ cupiscentiam renatorum aut liberant ab omni culpa, si culpa pro reatu accipiatur aut cul¬ pam mortalem, et damnantem illi tribuunt si culpa pro eo accipiatur, quod natura sua imputari, et damnare potest. S. vero Hiero¬ nymus apertissime distinguit inter « culpam vitii, et crimen, et propassioni » tribuit tan¬ tum « culpam vitii, » qua; polluit aliquo modo sed non damnat ex natura sua, cum non sit crimen, « Passioni >» autem, id est, concu¬ piscenti» omnino voluntari», tribuit « cri¬ men », quod facit reum ignis »terni. Quod si, ut quidam volunt, in textu II. Hieronymi non legatur vitii culpam, sed initii, tum sen¬ sus erit, primos motus non esse peccata, sed originem et causam peccatorum. 430 LIBEH V.