Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Grace of the First Man
Chapter 6: The truth of the fourth proposition is proved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Gratia Primi Hominis. 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).
Now at length the fourth proposition, explained in the preceding chapter, is to be confirmed from the divine writings, the testimonies of the ancients, and arguments drawn from reason. In which place it will be well to observe that our opinion is confirmed by all the testimonies which either show that the integrity of the first man was supernatural, or at least that some supernatural gift was conferred on the first man; for both come into controversy, and each has its assailants.
First, then, the sacred writings indicate what man is from the condition of his own nature, in these words: dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return, Genesis 3. For this is the meaning of those words: Although by my kindness I made thee very glorious, so that thou couldst dread neither death nor any evils, yet from thy nature thou wast dust — mortal, fragile, liable to pains and toils; and because by thy own fault thou hast been stripped of that gift of mine superadded, and hast fallen back into thy natural state, therefore now also dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. Furthermore, in the eighth Psalm the first creation of man is described in these words: What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: And hast set him over the works of thy hands. And his fall is described in Psalm 48: man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them. By which two things it is indicated that the first man was adorned with supernatural gifts. First, because the Prophet marvels that man was almost equaled to the angels: “What is man,” says he, “that thou art mindful of him?” — as if he would say: it is a wonder that man, by his nature corporeal, mortal, liable to the affections of the other animals, was raised to such glory as to be very little short of the angels. Then there is added that the other gifts conferred on the first man at the beginning he calls honor and glory; and honor and glory without doubt designate something extrinsic and superadded. Likewise Ecclesiasticus 17: God created man of the earth… and clothed him with strength according to himself. In which place the creation is referred to nature, the clothing of strength to the superadded gifts; for as of honor, so also of clothing, it can rightly be said that it is something extrinsic and superadded. Hither also pertains the parable of him who fell among robbers, Luke 10: for first they stripped him, then, wounds inflicted, they went away, leaving him half-dead. Where not only do we understand, from the name of the garments, which (as we said) signify something extrinsic, that it can be gathered that the first man was deprived of supernatural gifts; but we also observe that the wounds of human nature followed from the stripping. For not without cause did the Lord in that parable say first that the man was stripped, and afterwards that he was wounded — whereas the contrary is wont to happen in real robberies; namely, he wished to indicate that in this spiritual robbery the wounds of our nature were born from the very loss of original righteousness; seeing that that gift of righteousness not only covered and adorned, but also tended and healed that languor which would otherwise have sprouted from the condition of matter. Hence from human nature, stripped of that gift of righteousness and left to itself, those blows and wounds straightway broke forth which all we born of Adam experience. Moreover, that parable is expounded of the loss of the gifts and virtues which the first man made by sinning, with common consent, by the Fathers — St. Ambrose, Bede, Theophylact, and St. Basil, whom St. Thomas cites in the Catena in the commentary on this place; likewise St. Augustine, book 2 of Questions on the Gospels, question 19, and St. Bernard, sermon 1 on the Annunciation.
Let there come, second, the testimonies of the ancient Fathers. St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in the book On the Divine Names, chapter 4, part 4, speaking of the demons: “Nor have the angelic gifts bestowed on them ever been changed; but they are entire, and wholly conspicuous.” Which words Marsilio Ficino thus expounds in the commentary on that place: “As the night air is dark, not because it either takes on a new thing or loses its own nature, but because the light of the sun is wanting to it, which makes a thing of itself dark to be lucid: so the mind, even the evil demon, is so surnamed, not because it either loses anything natural or takes on anything foreign, but because it falls away from the beneficent gift of God.” Thus far he. And hence the scholastic theologians received that common proposition, that the natural endowments in the demons after their fall (Dionysius being witness) remained entire — which same thing without doubt must be understood of man also. And if the natural endowments in the angel and in man remained entire after the fall, and it is sufficiently settled that the righteousness in which they were created did not remain in them after the fall, certainly it manifestly follows that that righteousness was not natural to the angel and to man. Nor is what we here teach from Dionysius — that the natural endowments in angel and man remained entire after the fall — repugnant to what we have taught above more than once, that our nature was wounded and corrupted through Adam's sin. For our nature, and that of the demons, if it be referred to that state in which it could have been had it been created in pure naturals, must be called entire — and in this sense it is called entire by Dionysius and the theologians; but if we look to that state to which it had been raised by the kindness of the Creator, it must be called wounded and corrupted. An example of this we have in Samson, who, when after his locks were cut he had lost that signal strength divinely received, is said to have been made weak — not that he was now weaker than men are for the most part wont to be, but that he was weaker than he himself had been before.
St. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, chapter 16: “Sanctification is not without the Spirit; for the powers of the heavens are not holy by nature, but according to the proportion of their eminence among themselves they have their measure of sanctification from the Holy Spirit.” Thus far he. Nor can it be doubted that what St. Basil wrote of the angels fitly applies to the first man. Wherefore the first man was not holy by nature while he dwelt in paradise, but had received from the Holy Spirit a measure of sanctification; hence that original righteousness and divine likeness with which he was endowed was not a natural condition, but a supernatural gift. St. John Chrysostom, homily 15 [al. 16] on Genesis, speaks thus of Adam and Eve, who, though they were naked, yet on account of original righteousness were not ashamed: “They were clothed with the glory which had come from above.” Where thou seest original righteousness compared to a garment, and to a garment coming from above — that thou mayest understand that it came to the first parents not from the principles of nature, but from heaven, and above the condition of nature. St. Cyril, book 1 on John, chapter 9, speaking of Adam: “By participation of the light he shines with the grace of God glorifying him above his own nature, and mounting up with the various ornaments of gifts.” And below: “For truly merciful is the Lord, who by his goodness makes a creature small and abject according to nature to be great and wonderful.” And chapter 13: “The creature, though it be a servant, is called to supernatural things by the mere nod and will of the Father.” And in the book On Adoration in Spirit, before the middle: “When this living thing — that is, man — had been completed by God the creator in the reasons of its own nature, it straightway receives the likeness to him.” Finally, in the book That the Spirit is God, near the beginning: “Since to be able to make, and to grant to creatures a dignity which exceeds the creature, is more than the nature of creatures bears; and the Spirit deifies: how should he be a creature, and not rather God, as being deific?” From these testimonies of St. Cyril, a most learned man, we most openly learn that Adam, besides his natural ornaments, received also many supernatural gifts; and that human nature is of itself small and abject, but by the kindness of the Creator is exalted to huge glory. Nor unlike these do the Latin Fathers deliver. St. Ambrose, in the book On Isaac and the Soul, chapter 5: “Nor was Adam naked when innocence clothed him.” And book 2 On Jacob and the Blessed Life, chapter 3: “Thus Adam, despoiled, was found naked.” And in the book On Elijah and Fasting, chapter 4: “Adam was covered with the veil of the virtues before he transgressed; but, as it were stripped by the transgression, he saw that he was naked, because he had lost the clothing which he had.” And that that garment of innocence was not natural but gratuitous is indicated both by the very appellation of a garment, which signifies something superadded, and by what the same author writes in book 7 on Luke, where, explaining the parable of him who fell among robbers, and applying it to Adam and to us all: “Who are these robbers, but the angels of night and of darkness? These first strip off the garments of spiritual grace which we have received, and so are wont to inflict wounds.” And in the book On Paradise, chapter 14: “What is 'Adam, where art thou?' — that is, not in what place, but in what things art thou. It is therefore not a question, but a rebuke: from what goods (says he), from what beatitude, from what grace, into what misery hast thou fallen back!” St. Jerome, on chapter 3 [al. 9] of Hosea: “The demons, who have fallen from their proper dignity, and possess nothing of their ancient grace, are dry, and withering with old drought.” From which place we have it that the angels through sin lost their supernatural gifts. For if by the name of grace we understood natural gifts, it would follow that the angels retained nothing of their natural gifts after sin, and so were reduced to nothing. And the account of men and of angels is the same, as the adversaries confess, and as is gathered from St. Augustine, the book On Rebuke and Grace, chapters 10 and 11; it is not to be denied, therefore, that men through Adam's fall lost supernatural gifts. St. Augustine, book 12 On the City of God, chapter 9, speaks thus of the angels: “At once founding in them their nature, and bestowing grace.” Where he most openly distinguishes in the angels nature from grace. And book 13, chapter 13, of our first parents he says thus: “After the transgression of the precept was committed, divine grace deserting them, they were confounded at the nakedness of their bodies.” And book 11 On Genesis, chapter 31: “As soon as they transgressed the precept, grace deserting them within, altogether stripped, they cast their eyes upon their own members.” And book 4 against Julian, last chapter: “What is the nakedness disclosed on tasting the forbidden food, but that which grace covered, laid bare by sin? For the grace of God was great there, where the earthly and animal body had no bestial lust. He therefore who, clothed with grace, had nothing in his body to be ashamed of, when stripped of grace felt what he ought to cover.” Thou seest in these places that that innocence and original righteousness of the first man is always named grace by Augustine; thou seest likewise that it is perpetually compared to a garment, which is superadded from without to the human body; thou seest, finally, that bestial lust naturally belongs to an earthly and animal body, and that therefore it was not from nature, but from the great grace of God, that the earthly and animal body of Adam in the state of innocence lacked that lust. Add that the same St. Augustine, book 3 On Free Choice, chapters 20, 22, and 24, teaches not obscurely that man could have been created without original righteousness; nor did he correct that place in the Retractations, but rather confirmed it, when in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 9, he spoke thus: “Ignorance and difficulty, even if they were the natural beginnings of man, not even so would God be to be blamed, but to be praised.” But if original righteousness were natural, man could not have been created without it, unless God had willed of his own accord to found a thing naturally maimed and imperfect — which seems abhorrent to his wisdom and goodness: for the works of God are perfect, Deuteronomy 32. St. Anselm, in the book On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin, chapter 27 [al. 22], speaks thus of Adam: “Since, placed in so great a height of grace, he of his own accord deserted the goods which he had received to be kept for himself and for others, therefore the sons lost what the father, by keeping it, could have given them, and by not keeping it took away.” Finally, St. Bernard, in the first sermon on the Annunciation, says that Adam by transgressing lost the garments of the virtues and the likeness to God, but not the divine image — because that (as he himself speaks) was not sewn on, but implanted, and impressed on nature itself. Wherefore, by the testimony of St. Bernard, the righteousness and the other virtues whose loss the first man made by sinning were not implanted and impressed on nature itself, as natural gifts are, but sewn on from without and superadded, as supernatural gifts are. And let these suffice from the Fathers. Let us now add arguments sought from reason.
The first reason: it is natural to an animal body, endowed with sense and appetite, to desire the sensible good; it is natural to a rational spirit to desire the spiritual good; wherefore, if one nature be made, compounded of a rational spirit and an animal body, it will be natural to it to have diverse and mutually conflicting propensities. That our first parents, then, before sin lacked that battle of diverse appetitions was a supernatural gift, not a natural condition. The second reason: if the corruption which is now in human nature did not follow from the mere removal of the supernatural gift, and would not have been in man created in pure naturals, I ask its cause; for there must be some cause of the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. Certain men answer that the cause is God. But the Scriptures cry out against them, witnessing in many places that concupiscence is not from God. John, in his first epistle, chapter 2, says that concupiscence is not of the Father, but is of the world. James, in his epistle, chapter 1, writes that no man is tempted by God, but by his own concupiscence — which he certainly would not write if concupiscence itself, which is the fountain of temptations, had been implanted in us by God. The law, “Thou shalt not covet,” holy and good, which the Apostle also calls the law of the mind, Romans 7, is without doubt from God; how then is the law of the members, which fights against it, from God? And how does God command us not to do what he himself, in punishment of sin, compels us to do? Further, St. Augustine writes indeed in many places that the disobedience of the flesh was repaid by God to man in punishment of sin; but he explains that this was done through the taking away of grace, not through the sending in of concupiscence. For thus he speaks, book 11 On Genesis, chapter 31: “As soon as they transgressed the precept, grace deserting them within, altogether stripped, they cast their eyes on their own members.” And book 4 against Julian, chapter 13 [al. last]: “The lust was not in the fruit of the tree; and therefore the tree was good, but evil is the disobedience of lust, which rose up, God deserting, against man's disobedience which he committed in the matter of the tree.” Hearest thou? — God deserting, not God implanting, lust rose up. And he speaks similarly in other places cited above. Just as also, when the same Augustine teaches that sin is sometimes the punishment of sin, and thereby from God, from whom is all just punishment, he does not understand that sin is from God implanting malice, but from his not imparting mercy. Book 5 against Julian, chapter 3: “When a man is said to be delivered up to his own desires, he thence becomes guilty, because, deserted by God, he yields to them and consents; he is conquered, captured, dragged, possessed; and the consequent sin becomes to him the punishment of the preceding sin.” And in epistle 105 [al. 194] to Sixtus: “God hardens not by imparting malice, but by not imparting mercy.” And tractate 53 on John: “So God blinds, so he hardens — by deserting and not helping; which by a hidden judgment he can do, by an unjust one he cannot.” And so God is not the cause of concupiscence, or of the corruption of our nature, save as removing the hindrance, as St. Thomas speaks in the places cited above. I pass over those opinions which refer the cause of this corruption to the forbidden apple, or to the breath of the serpent — both because they are plainly improbable, and because they can more conveniently be refuted in the disputation on original sin. Wherefore, since no cause of this corruption can be rendered besides the condition of matter as the efficient cause, and the sin of Adam as the demeritorious cause, and the divine justice, stripping man of the supernatural gift, as the cause removing the hindrance, in these we must rest, nor is another cause to be sought. The third reason: from the sins which are committed by men after the fall of the first man, however many and however grave, only the gift of supernatural grace is lost, and a certain propensity is acquired to committing the same sin again, and the inclination to the virtue contrary to that sin is diminished; but no natural principle or gift is corrupted, nor is a propensity to all vices acquired or increased, nor the inclination to all virtues diminished, as experience itself witnesses. But the sin of Adam, since it was a certain definite and actual sin, and of the same kind as the rest which are committed by men, does not seem to have been able to produce another effect than the rest produce — this excepted, that it, as the sin of the head of the whole nature, overflowed upon all posterity. It is not probable, therefore, that from Adam's sin the natural principles or gifts could be corrupted, nor that that concupiscence could be born which is a propensity to all vices — unless it would have followed, the gift of original righteousness removed, from the very nature compounded of contraries. The fourth reason: if human nature, such as it now is, the fault removed, is evil, and necessarily slips into sins, and therefore could not be created by God without original righteousness, as the adversaries will have it, then certainly it follows that a dead man cannot be called back to life by God unless endowed with original righteousness; for the same absurdity follows, whether a nature evil, and which necessarily sins, be created or be restored by God — for that restoration is no less the work of God alone than creation. And as God would be called the author of sin if he created a nature which could not avoid sins, so also he would be reckoned the author of sin if he restored such a nature, especially alone and by his own immediate action. But we know from the sacred writings many raised from the dead by divine power, and among them some whom it is altogether credible to have been purged from original sin — such as Lazarus the brother of Martha, and those infants whom Elijah and Elisha called back from the dead; who nevertheless, without any doubt, even in that new life lacked original righteousness, and were such as are the rest who are propagated from the flesh of parents through generation in the ordinary way. Add that an argument can be drawn from the greater: for if God could join the just souls of Lazarus and of the infants of whom we spoke to a mortal, animal body, liable to concupiscence and ignorance, why could he not much more, at the beginning, join souls neither just nor unjust to a like body? The fifth reason fights properly against those who contend that not only some rectitude, but even all the gifts granted to the first parents in creation, were natural. The first parents were raised to that dignity, that they should be sons of God, and certain gods — that is, partakers of the divine nature, as St. Peter speaks of those who are justified through Christ; nor do the adversaries deny it, and we shall confirm it more fully in the following disputation. But assuredly it is most absurd that a created thing, such as man is, should naturally make a god, or a son of God. Wherefore St. Augustine, in book 3 against Maximinus, chapter 15 [al. 12]: “Therefore man becomes a son by grace, because he is not by nature.” And St. Cyril, book 1 on John, chapter 13 [al. 18]: “One is the account of nature, another of adoption; one of the true son, another of the adopted.” But we are sons of God by adoption; truly therefore and naturally he is the Son, through whom we are adopted into sonship. And above he had said: “Since the Gentiles received the Son through faith, they receive also the power to become sons of God; and they receive it from the Son, in whom alone this is naturally inherent.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Nunc tandem propositio quarta superiore capite explicata, ex divinis litteris, veterum rostimoniis et argumentis ex ratione ductis, comprobanda est. Quo loco illud animad- vetere oportebit, testimoniis omnibus no¬ stram sententiam confirmari, qua; vel osten¬ dunt integritatem primi hominis fuisse su- pernaturalem, vel certe donum aliquod su- pernaturale primo homini fu'sse collatum, utrumque enim in controversiam venit, et suos habet oppugnatores. Primum igitur sacra; littera;, quid ex con¬ ditione sua; natura; sit homo, indicant illis verbis : Pulvis cs, ct in pulverem reverteris, Genes, ni (l).Hroc enim est sententia illorum verborum. Quamquam te valde gloriosum mea benegnitate effecerim, ita ut posses ne¬ que mortem, neque mala ulla formidare, ta¬ men ex natura tua pulvis eras, mortalis, fra¬ gilis, doloribus, laboribusque obnoxius, et quia dono illo meo superaddito culpa tua spoliatus es, ct in statum tuum naturalem re¬ cidisti, ideo nunc etiam pulvis cs, et in pul¬ verem reverteris. Ad haec in Psalmo octavo describitur his verbis hominis prima creatio : Quid est homo, quia memor es ejus , aut filius hominis, quia visitas eum ? minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis, gloria et honore coronasti eum, et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum (2). Casus autem ejusdem describi¬ tur in Psal. XLYlll : Homo cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est jumentis insipi¬ entibus, et similis factus est illis (3), quibus duobus modis indicatur fuisse primum ho¬ minem donis supernaturalibus ornatum . Primum, quoniam miratur Propheta homi¬ nem fere Angelis roquatum. Quid est homo (inquit) quod memor es ejus; quasi dicere (l)Gen. III, 19. - (2) Psal. VIII, 5. - (3) Psal XLVIII, 13. 182 LIBER I. vellet, mirum esse, hominem natura sua cor¬ poratum, mortalem, animalium cae ter orum affectibus obnoxium, ad eam gloriam eve¬ ctum, ut parum omnino ab Angelis abesset. Deinde accedit, quod dona alia primo homi¬ ni initio collata, vocat honorem, et gloriam : honor autem et gloria sine dubio aliquid extrinsecum, et superadditum designant. Item Ecclesiastici xvii : Deus creavit homi¬ nem de terra , et secundum se vestivit illum vir¬ tute (4). Quo loco creatio refertur ad natu¬ ram, indumentum virtutis ad superaddita dona. Quemadmodum enim de honore, sic etiam de indumento recte dici potest esse quid extrinsecum, et superadditum. Quo e- tiam pertinet parabola de eo qui incidit in latrones, Luca) x. primum enim despoliave¬ runt eum, deinde plagis impositis abierunt semivivo relicto. Ubi non solum intelligimus ex nomine vestium, qua) (ut diximus) ex¬ trinsecum quid significant, colligi posse do¬ nis supernaturalibus privatum fuisse primum hominem, sed etiam animadvertimus, plagas natura) humana) ex despoliatione consecutas esse. Neque enim sine causa Dominus in pa¬ rabola illa prius dixit, hominem spoliatum, posterius autem vulneratum fuisse, cum ta¬ men contra accidere soleat in veris latroci¬ niis : nimirum indicare voluit in hoc spiritua¬ li latrocinio, ex ipsa amissione justitiae ori¬ ginalis nata esse vulnera nostrae naturae, si¬ quidem donum illud justitiae non solum te¬ gebat, et ornabat, sed etiam curabat, et sa¬ nabat languorem illum, qui ex conditione materiae alioqui pullulasset. Proinde ex natu¬ ra humana dono illo justitiae spoliata, sibique relicta continuo plaga) illa), et vulnera erupe¬ runt. Quae omnes ex Adamo nati experimur. Porro parabolam istam de jactura dono¬ rum, et virtutum, quam primus homo pec¬ cando fecit, exponunt communi consensu Patres, S. Ambrosius, Bcda, Theophylactus, et S. Basibus, quem in Cathcna citat S. Tho- mas in commentario hujus loci, necnon S. Augustinus lib. ii. qua)stion. Evangelicar. queest. 19. et S. Bernardus serm. 1. de An¬ nuntiat. Accedant secundo testimonia veterum Patrum. S. Dionysius Areopagita lib. de di- vin. nominibus cap. 4. part. 4. de daxmoni- bus loquens : « Nec Angelica, inquit, mune¬ ra his tributa aliquando permutata, sed inte¬ gra sunt, pcenitusque conspicua. » Qua) ver¬ ba ita edisserit in commentario ejus loci Marsilius Ficinus : « Sicut (inquit) nocturnus aer tenebrosus, non quia vel rem novam su¬ beat, vel naturam amittat suam. Sed quia deest ei solis lumen, quod rem per se tene¬ brosam efficit lucidam : sic animus, ac da)- mon malus cognominatur, non propterea quod vel naturale quidquam perdat, vel sus¬ cipiat alienum, sed quia deficit a benefico Dei munere. » Hsec ille. Atque hinc acceperunt scholastici Theolo¬ gi communem illam sententiam, naturalia in daunonibus post casum (Dionysio teste) man¬ sisse integra. Quod idem sine dubio de ho¬ mine quoque inteUigi debet. Quod si natura¬ lia in Angelo, et homine post lapsum inte¬ gra remanserunt, et satis constat, justitiam, in qua conditi sunt, in eis post lapsum non mansisse, certe manifeste sequitur, justitiam illam Angelo et homini naturalem non fuisse. Neque i'epugnat quod hoc loco ex Diony¬ sio docemus, naturalia in Angelo, et homine post lapsum integra remansisse, cum eo, quod supra non semel docuimus, naturam nostram per Ada) peccatum vulneratam, et corruptam esse. Nam eadem nostra, et da)- monum natura, si referatur ad eum statum, in quo esse potuisset, si in puris naturalibus creata fuisset, integra dici debet, et in hoc sensu integra dicitur a Dionysio, et Theolo- logis. Si vero statum illum respiciamus, ad quem benignitate Conditoris fuerat evecta, vulnerata, et corrupta dicenda est. Exem¬ plum hujus rei habemus in Samsone, qui post crines refectos cum insignem illam for¬ titudinem divinitus acceptam amisisset, in¬ firmus factus dicitur, non quod esset jam in¬ firmior, quam homines ut plurimum esse soleant, sed quod esset infirmior, quam ipse antea fuisset. S. Basibus in lib. de Spiritu sancto ad Am¬ philochium cap. 1G. « Sanctificatio, inquit, non est absque Spiritu ; non enim natura sanctx sunt colorum virtutes, sed juxta pro¬ portionem eminentia) inter ipsas, sanctifica¬ tionis mensuram a Spiritu sancto habent. » Ha)c ille. Neque dubitari potest, quin quod de Angelis S. Basibus scripsit, idem in pri¬ mum hominem apto conveniat. Quare non natura sanctus fuit primus homo dum para¬ disum incoleret, sed a Spiritu sancto mensu¬ ram sanctificationis acceperat : proinde ju¬ stitia illa originalis, divinaque similitudo, qua (1) Eccl. XVII, L CAPUT VI. 183 praeditus erat, non conditio naturalis, sed donum supernaturale fuit. S. Joannes Chrysostomus hom. io. in Ge¬ nes. de Adamo, etEva, qui cum nudi essent, tamen ob justitiam originalem non erube¬ scebant, ita loquitur : « Gloria, inquit, quae superne venerat, vestiti erant. » Ubi vides justitiam originalem comparari indumento, et indumento superne venienti : ut intelligas eam non ex naturae principiis, sed e coelo, ac supra naturae conditionem primis paren¬ tibus accessisse. Sanctus Cyrillus lib. I. in Joan. cap. 9. de Adamo loquens : ((Participatione inquit, luminis splendet super naturam suam glorifi¬ cantis Dei gratia, et variis donorufn orna¬ mentis ascendens. » Et infra : « Misericors enim vere Dominus est, qui creaturam par¬ vam, atque abjectam, secundum naturam, magnam atque mirabilem sua efficit bonita¬ te. » Et cap. 13. « Creatura cum serva sit, nutu solum et voluntate Patris ad superna- turalia vocatur. » Et in lib. de adorat, in spiritu ante medium. « Ubi, inquit, Deo conditore animal hoc, id est, homo, suai naturae rationibus absolutum est, accipit sta- tim similitudinem ad illum. » Denique in lib. Quod Spiritus sit Deus , prope initium : « Cum, inquit, posse facere, et concedere creaturis dignitatem, quae creaturam exce¬ dit, amplius sit, quam ferat creaturarum na¬ tura : et Spiritus deificet, quomodo esset creatura, et non magis Deus, utpote deifi- cus ? » Ex his S. Cyrilli doctissimi hominis testimoniis apertissime discimus, Adam prae¬ ter naturalia ornamenta, multa etiam dona supernaturalia accepisse, et naturam huma¬ nam, per se parvam, atque abjectam esse, sed conditoris benignitate ad ingentem glo¬ riam exaltari. Neque his dissimilia tradunt Patres Latini. S. Ambrosius in lib. de Isaac, et annua cap. 5 : « Nec Adam, inquit, nudus erat quando eum innocentia vestiebat. » Et lib. ii. de Jacob, et beata vita cap. 3 : « Sic, in¬ quit, despoliatus Adam, nudus inventusest. » Et lib. de Elia, et jejunio cap. 4 : « Opertus, inquit, erat Adam virtutum velamine, prius¬ quam praevaricaretur, sed tamquau> exutus praevaricatione, vidit se esse nudum, quia indumentum, quod habebat, amiserat. » In¬ nocentiae autem illius vestem, non natura¬ lem, sed gratuitam fuisse indical tum ipsa vestis appellatio, quae superadditum quid significat, tum id quod idem auctor scribit lib. VII. in Luc. cap. 47. ubi explicans para¬ bolam ejus, qui incidit in latrones, et eam applicans ad Adam, et nos omnes : « Qui sunt, inquit, isti latrones, nisi Angeli noctis, et tenebrarum ? Hi ante despoliant, quae ac¬ cepimus indumenta gratiae spiritualis, et sic vulnera inferre consuerunt. » Et in lib. dc Paradiso cap. 14 : « Quid est, inquit, Adam ubi es? id est, non in quo, sed in quibus es : non ergo interrogatio est, sed increpatio, de quibus (inquit) bonis, de qua beatitudine, de qua gratia , in quam miseriam recidisti. » S. Hieronymus in cap. m. Osea) : « Dae¬ mones, inquit, qui lapsi sunt a propria dig¬ nitate, et nihil antiquae gratiae possidentes, aridi sunt, et veteri siccitate marcentes. » Ex quo loco habemus, Angelos per pecca¬ tum dona supernaturalia perdidisse. Si enim nomine gratiae dona naturalia intelligere- mus, consequens esset, ut Angeli nihil natu¬ ralium donorum post peccatum retinerent, atque adeo ad nihilum redacti essent. Est autem eadem ratio hominum, et Angelorum, ut adversarii confitentur ; et colligitur ex S. Augustino lib. de correptione, et gratia cap. 10. et 11. non igitur negandum est, homines per lapsum Adae, dona supernaturalia a- misisse. S. Augustinus lib. xn. de Civit. Dei cap. 9. de Angelis ita loquitur : « Simul in eis con¬ dens naturam, et largiens gratiam. » Ubi apertissime distinguit in Angelis naturam a gratia, et lib. xiu. cap 13. de primis nostris parentibus sic ait : « Posteaquam praecepti transgressio facta est, gratia deserente divi¬ na, de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. » Et lib. xi. de Genes, cap. 31: «Mox, inquit, utpraeceptum transgressi sunt, intrin¬ secus gratia deserente, omnino mudati in sua membra oculos injecerunt.» Et lib. iv. in Ju¬ lianum cap, ult : « Quid est, inquit, gustato cibo prohibito nuditas indicata, nisi peccato nudatum quod gratia contegebat ? gratia quippe Dei magna ibi erat, ubi terrenum, et animale corpus bestialem libidinem non ha¬ bebat. Qui ergo vestitus gratia, non habebat, in suo corpore quod puderet, spoliatus gra¬ tia sensit quod operire deberet. » Yides in his locis, semper ab Augustino innocentiam illam, justitiamque originalem primi hominis, gratiam nominari. Vides item eam indumento, quod superadditur ex¬ trinsecus humano corpori perpetuo compa¬ rari. Vides denique bestialem libidinem ter¬ reno, et animali corpori naturaliter conve- LIBER 1. !8i nire, et ideo non ex natura, sed ex magna Dei gratia corpus Adami terrenum, et ani¬ male libidine illa in statu innocentia) caruis- se. Adde quod idemS. Augustinus lib. m. do libero arbitrio cap. 20. 22. et 21. non obs¬ cure docet, potuisse creari hominem sine justitia originali, neque eum locum in Re¬ tractationibus correxit, sed confirmavit po¬ tius, cum in lib.* i. Rctractation. cap. 0. ita locutus est : « Ignorantia, ct difficultas, etiamsi essent hominis primordia naturalia, nec sic culpandus Deus, sed laudandus esset. )> At si justitia originalis naturalis es¬ set, non potuisset homo sine ea creari, nisi Deus rem naturaliter mancam, et imperfe¬ ctam sponte condere voluisset, quod abhor¬ rere videtur ab ejus sapientia, ct bonitate : Dei enim perfecta sunt opera, Deut. 32. S. Ansclmus in lib. de conceptu virginali, ct peccato originali cap. 22. de Adamo sic loquitur : « Quoniam, inquit, in' tanta) gratia) celsitudine positus, quae bona sibi et aliis ser¬ vanda acceperat, sponte deseruit, idcirco fi¬ lii perdiderunt, quae pater illis cum servando dare posset, non servando abstulit. » Denique S. Bernardus in primo sermone de Annuntiatione dicit, A dumum pi' a) vari¬ cando amisisse indumenta virtutum, et si¬ militudinem ad Deum, non autem imaginem divinam, ct quia illa (ut ipse loquitur) non erat assuta, sed insita, atque ipsi impressa natura). Quocirca ex testimonio S. Bernardi, justitia, ca)tcra)quc virtutes, quarum jactu¬ ram primus homo peccando fecit, non erant insita), ct impressa) ipsi natura), ut sunt do¬ na naturalia, sed extrinsecus assutse, ac su¬ peraddita), ut sunt dona supernaturalia. At¬ que litec ex Patribus sufficiant. Addamus nunc argumenta ex ratione petita. Prima ratio. Naturale est corpori animali sensu ct appetitu pixedito concupiscere bonum sensibilem : naturale est spiritui rationali con¬ cupiscere bonum spirituale, quare si fiat una natura ex spiritu rationali, ct corpore ani¬ mali conflata naturale erit ille habere diver¬ sas ct intersc pugnantes propensiones. Quod igitur primi parentes nostri ante peccatum pugna ista diversarum appetitionum care¬ rent, donum erat supcrnaturale, non condi¬ tio naturalis. Secunda ratio. Si corruptio, qua) nunc est in natura humana, non est consecuta ex so¬ la icmotionc doni supcrnaturalis, neque fuis¬ set in homine in puris naturalibus condito, qua)ro causam ejus ; aliqua enim causa esse debet rebellionis carnis ad spiritum. Respon¬ dent quidam : causam esse Deum Scripturio partim reclamant, qua) concupiscentiam non esse ex Deo, multis in locis testantur. Joan- nes in epist. 1. cap. ii. dicit, concupiscentiam non esse ex patre, sed ex mundo. Jacobus in es epistola sua cap. 1. scribit, neminem a Deo tentari, sed a concupiscentia sua, quod certe non scriberet, si concupiscentia ipsa, qua) fons est tentationum, a Deo nobis esset in¬ serta. Lex : Aon concupisces , sancta ct bona, quam ct legem mentis Apostolus vocat ad ltoman. vn, sine dubio est a Deo : quomodo igitur Iqx membrorum, qua) illi repugnat, est a Deo et quomodo jubet Deus ut non fa¬ ciamus quod ipse in poenam peccati cogit non facere ? Porro S. Augustinus scribit quidem multis in locis, inobedientiam carnis a Deo retribu¬ tam homini in poenam peccati, sed explicat id factum esse per ablationem gratia), non per immissionem concupiscentia). Sic enim loquitur lib. xi. de Genes, cap. 31 : « Mox ut pra)ceptum transgressi sunt, intrinsecus gra¬ tia deserente omnino nudati in sua membra oculos injecerunt. » Et lib. iv. in Julianum cap. 13 : « Non in fructu, inquit, ligni fuit libido : et ideo bonum erat lignum, sed mala est inobedientia, libidinis, qua) adversus ho- minus inobedentiam quam in ligno admisit Deo deserente surrexit. » Audis, Deo dese¬ rente, non Deo inserente libidinem surrexis- se ? Et similiter loquitur in aliis locis supra citatis. Quemadmodum etiam cum idem Au¬ gustinus docet, peccatum aliquando poenam esse peccati, et per hoc a Deo, a quo est om¬ nis justa poena, non intelligit peccatum esse a Deo inserente malitiam, sed non imper¬ tiendo misericordiam. Lib. v. in Julianum cap. 3 : « Cum, inquit, dicitur homo tradi de¬ sideriis suis, inde fit reus, quia desertus a Deo cedit eis, atque consentit, vincitur, ca¬ pitur, trahitur, possidetur, ct fiet ei pecca¬ tum consequens pra)cedentis poena peccati. » Et in epist. 103, ad Sixtum : « Non obdurat Deus impartiendo malitiam, sed non imper¬ tiendo misericordiam.» Ettract. 33. inJoan- nem : "« Sic cxca)cat, sic obdurat Deus, de¬ serendo, et non adjuvando, quod occulto judicio facere potest, iniquo non potest. » Itaque non est Deus concupiscentia), sive (J) Deut. XXXII, CAPU1 VII. 185 corruptionis nostra natura causa , nisi ut removens prohibens, ut S. Thomas loqui¬ tur in locis supra citatis. Omitto sententias illas, qua causam hujus corruptionis referunt in pomum vetitum, sive in flatum serpentis, tum quod plane sint im probabiles, tum quod in disputatione de peccato originis commodius refelli possint. Quare cum nulla possit reddi causa hujus corruptionis prater conditionem materia, ut causam efficientem, et peccatum Adami ut causam demeritoriam, et divinam justitiam dono supernaturali hominem spoliantem ut causam removentem prohibens, in his est ac¬ quiescendum, neque alia causa quarenda est. Tertia ratio. Ex peccatis, qua ob homi¬ nibus post lapsum primi hominis committun¬ tur, quamvis plurimis, et gravissimis, amit¬ titur solum donum gratia supernaturalis, et acquiritur propensio quadam ad idem pec¬ catum iterum committendum, et minuitur inclinatio ad virtutem peccato illi contrariam, sed non corrumpitur principium, aut donum aliquod naturale, neque acquiritur, aut au¬ getur propensio ad omnia vitia, neque mi¬ nuitur inclinatio ad omnes virtutes, ut expe¬ rientia ipsa testatur. At peccatum Ada cum fuerit certum quoddam, et actuale peccatum et ejusdem generis cujus sunt catera, qua ab hominibus committuntur, non videtur alium effectum producere potuisse, quam pro¬ ducant catera, eo excepto, quod illud, ut capitis totius natura, in omnes posteros re¬ dundavit : non igitur probabile est ex pec¬ cato Ada naturalia principia, sive dona po¬ tuisse corrumpi, neque concupiscentiam il¬ lam nasci, qua est propensio ad omnia vi¬ tia, nisi ea remoto justitia originalis dono, ex ipsa natura composita, ex contrariis con¬ secuta fuisset. Quarta ratio. Si natura humana, qualis nunc est, remota culpa, mala est, et neces¬ sario labitur in peccata, et ideo non potuit a Deo creari, ut adversarii volunt, sine justitia originali, certe sequitur, non posse homi¬ nem mortuum a Deo revocari ad vitam, nisi praeditum originali justitia : idem enim se¬ quitur absurdum, sive creetur, sive repare¬ tur a Deo natura mala, et quae necessario peccet. Non enim reparatio illa minus est opus solius Dei, quam creatio. Et sicut Deus diceretur auctor peccati, si naturam crearet qua) non posset peccata vitare, sic etiam censeretur peccati auctor, si naturam repa- Tom. V. raret, preesertim solus et immediata sua a- ctione, quoe non posset peccato abstinere. At multos novimus ex sacris litteris a mortuis ex¬ citatos divina virtute, et ex iis nonnullos, quos omnino credibile est a peccato originis fuisse purgatos, qualis fuit Lazarus frater Marthaj, infantes illi, quos Elias, et Elisseus a mortuis revocarunt : qui tamen sine dubi¬ tatione ulla etiam in nova illa vita justitia originali carebant, et tales erant quales sunt ca;teri, qui ex parentum carne per genera¬ tionem via ordinaria propagantur. Adde quod ratio a majori duci potest. Nam si Deus animas justas Lazari et infantium, de quibus diximus, conjungere potuit corpori mortali, animali, concupiscentiae, et ignorantiae ob¬ noxio, cur non magis potuit initio animas, neque justos, neque injustas simili corpori conjungere ? Quinta ratio proprie pugnat adversus illos qm nou solum qualemcumque rectitudinem, sed etiam omnia dona primis parentibus in creatione concessa naturalia fuisse conten¬ dunt. Primi parentes evecti fuere ad eam dignitatem ut essent filii Dei, et Dii quidam, id est, divinae consortes naturae, ut S. Petrus loquitur de iis, qui justificantur per Christum. Neque id adversarii negant, et nos in sequenti disputatione fusius comprobabimus. At pro¬ fecto absurdissimum est, rem creatam, qua¬ dis est homo, Deum, vel Dei filium natura¬ liter facere. Quocirca S. Augustinus in iii. lib. adversus Maximum cap. 15 : « Ideo, in¬ quit, homo fit gratia filius, quia non est na¬ tura. » Et S. Cyrillus lib. i. in Joan. cap. 18 : « Alia, inquit, naturae ratio, alia adoptionis, et alia veri filii, alia adoptati. » Sumus au¬ tem nos 'filii Dei adoptione. Vere igitur ac naturaliter ille filius est, per quem nos in fi¬ liationem adoptati ; et supra dixerat : « Quo¬ niam gentes Filium per fidem receperunt, po¬ testatem etiam accipiunt ut filii Dei fiant. Ac¬ cipiunt autem a Filio, cui soli naturaliter hoc inest. » CAPUT VII. Refelluntur argumenta contra superiorem