cooperation of the Deity in the performance of the mere outward part in an evil action; for God, whether to punish or to exercise mercy, has regard to the inward evil sentiment, since, without this, sin is not possible. It was thus the part of the Deity to call forth somehow an evil sentiment, in order to attain His ends; that is to say, he must annihilate His sanctity, in order on its ruins to attain to compassion and justice. Hence, Beza does not deny, that the first man, when he sinned, succumbed under an invincible destiny; that it was thus not left to his freedom to abstain from sin. But, like Luther and Calvin, distinguishing between necessity and compulsion, he says the latter does not occur in

quamvis imprudens Dei consilio subserviret? Nempe quia Deum odit, et totus invidiâ exæstuat, inimicitias serere voluit inter Deum et hominem. Quid autem cogitant Adamus et Heva, simul atque se dociles Satanæ discipulos præbuerunt? Nempe Deum ut invidum et mendacem coarguere, et eo invito sese in illius solio collocare."

The outlines of Beza's reasoning may be seen in Zwingle (De Provid. cap. vi. p. 364). How little, moreover, the sound common sense of the Christian, who, on one hand, upholds the idea of God's holiness and justice, and, on the other hand, clings to the doctrine of rewards and punishments according to man's works, could be led astray by such dialectic arts, the anonymous writer already cited very well points out, when he says: "Equidem favi ego aliquando doctrinæ tuæ, Calvine, eamque, quamvis non satis mihi perspicuam, defendi, quod tantum tribuebam auctoritati tuæ, ut vel contra cogitare putarem nefas; sed nunc auditis adversariorum argumentis, non habeo quod respondeam.......Nam tuæ rationes sunt obscura, et fere ejusmodi, ut statim, deposito de manu libro, excidant ex memoria, neque adversarios convincant. At adversariorum argumenta sunt aperta, acria, et quæ facile memoriæ mandentur, et ab illiteratis, quales fere erant qui Christum sectabantur, percipiantur. Hinc fit, ut tui discipuli fere magis authoritate tua nitantur, quam ratione. Et quum adversarios vincere non possunt, habent eos pro hæreticis et pertinacibus, et ab eorum consortio abstinent, et omnes ubique monent, ut abstineant." And such doctrines were to be held as formal articles of faith!

sin; that on the contrary, Adam sinned willingly, with an inward pleasure (spontaneo motu, in opposition to libero and voluntario motú), and although he was not able to avoid sinning, he did not wish to avoid it; and it was this very thing which constituted his criminality.*

It is by these principles, that passages in the Reformed confessions are to be estimated. They all assert, that God is not the author of sin, that is to say, in the sense, wherein Zwingle, Calvin, and Beza, attempt to exculpate the Deity, after having denied man's freewill.+

*Beza Absters. lib. i. "Quærenda est vitii origo in instrumentorum spontaneo motu, quo fit ut Deus juste decreverit, quod illi injuste fecerant," etc. A distinction very familiar to Beza! Compare his "Quæst. et Respons." lib. i. p. 120.

"Ergo quoad

† Confess. Helv. cap. ix. (ed. August. p. 19). malum sive peccatum, homo non coactus vel a Deo, vel a diabolo, sed sua sponte malum fecit, et hac parte liberrimi est arbitrii, cap. viii. p. 18. Damnamus præterea Florinum et Blastum, contra quos et Irenæus scripsit, ut omnes, qui Deum faciunt auctorem peccati. Confess. Gallic. cap. viii. lib. c. p. 113. Negamus tamen illum (Deum) esse autorem mali, aut eorum, quæ perperam fiunt, ullam culpam in ipsum transferri posse, quum ipsius voluntas sit summa et certissima omnis justitiæ norma. Habet autem ipse admirabiles potius quam explicabiles rationes, ex quibus sic utitur diabolis omnibus et peccantibus hominibus, tanquam instrumentis, ut quicquid illi male agunt, id ipse sicut juste ordinavit, sic etiam in bonum convertat." The Belgic Confession (cap. xiii. lib. c. p. 177) speaks in the same way.

CHAPTER II.

ON ORIGINAL SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

§ v.-The Catholic doctrine of original sin.

IT is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of the religious controversies of the last three centuries, that the Reformers, according to whose principles Adam in his fall only succumbed under a sentence of irresistible necessity pronounced upon him, should have represented the Deity as kindling into so fearful a wrath, and inflicting so frightful a chastisement for this act of the first man, which, according to their own views, should be called rather his pure misfortune. It is no easy task to explain how ideas so unconnected should have been associated in one and the same head. When we just now used the comprehensive word "Reformers," we did so advisedly; for even Luther and Melancthon had both completely framed their theory of original sin, when they were entangled in those opinions described in the preceding section,―opinions which Zwingle and Calvin only took up, and further developed. How could Adam be the subject of such fearful wrath, if he did only what he was obliged to do; if he perpetrated only what he could not avoid?* Hence arises a conception of original sin

* Calvin (Instit. lib. iii. cap. i. sec. 4, fol. 77) very well enlarges on the magnitude of Adam's sin; but his whole description makes no impression, so soon as we remember the author's assertion, that Adam

on the part of Protestants, which is in almost every respect (we trust we may be pardoned the expression) devoid of sense and reason. By the most exaggerated description of the effects of Adam's fall, they seem anxious to resuscitate the feeling of sin, and the consciousness of guilt, which, by their view of God's relation to evil, they were on the point of utterly destroying. And yet they only aggravate the matter, as will appear in the course of the present chapter, which must, however, in the first instance, be devoted to an examination of the principles laid down by the council of Trent.

The doctrine of the Catholic Church on original sin is extremely simple, and may be reduced to the following propositions. Adam, by sin, lost his original justice and holiness, drew down on himself by his disobedience the displeasure and the judgments of the Almighty, incurred the penalty of death, and thus, in all his parts, in his body as well as soul, became strangely deteriorated.* This his sinful condition is transmitted to all his posterity, as descending from him, entailing the consequence that man is of himself incapable, even with the aid of the most perfect ethical law offered to him from without (not excepting even the one revealed in the Old Covenant), to act in a manner agreeable to God,

must needs sin. He shows acutely enough the unbelief, ingratitude, and pride of Adam; but it is only a pity that our first parent was obliged to lose faith, gratitude, and humility.

* Concil. Trid. sess. v. decret. de peccat. orig. "Si quis non confitetur primum hominem Adam, cum mandatum Dei in paradiso fuisset transgressus, statim sanctitatem et justitiam, in qua constitutus fuerat, amisisse, incurrisseque per offensam prævaricationis hujusmodi iram et indignationem Dei, atque ideo mortem ...... totumque Adam .... secundum corpus et animam in deterius commutatum fuisse, anathema

or in any other way to be justified before Him, save only by the merits of Jesus Christ, the sole mediator betwixt God and man.* If to this we add, that the fathers of Trent attribute to fallen man free-will, representing it, however, as very much weakened,† and in consequence teach, that not every religious and moral action of man is necessarily sinful, although it be never, in itself and by itself, acceptable to God, nor anywise perfect, we then have stated all, which is to be held as strictly the doctrine of the Church. That, moreover, fallen man still bears the image of God (section 1), necessarily follows from what has been advanced.§

* Loc. cit. "Si quis hoc Adæ peccatum, quod origine unum est, et propagatione, non imitatione, transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium, vel per humanæ naturæ vires, vel per aliud remedium asserit tolli, quàm per meritum unius mediatoris Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui nos Deo reconciliavit sanguine suo, factus nobis justitia, sanctificatio, et redemptio, anathema sit."

† Concil. Trid. sess. vi. cap. v. "Si quis liberum hominis arbitrium post Adæ peccatum amissum et extinctum esse dixerit, aut rem esse de solo titulo, imo titulum sine re, figmentum denique a Satana invectum in ecclesiam, anathema sit." Cap. i.: "Primum declarat sancta synodus, ad justificationís doctrinam probe et sincere intelligendam, oportere, ut unusquisque agnoscat, et fateatur, quod cum omnes homines in prævaricatione Adæ innocentiam perdidissent, facti immundi, et, ut Apostolus inquit, naturâ filii iræ, usque adeo servi erant peccati, et sub potestate diaboli ac mortis, ut non modo gentes per vim naturæ, sed ne Judæi quidem per ipsam etiam literam legis Moysis, inde liberari, aut surgere possent, tametsi in eis liberum arbitrium minime extinctum esset, viribus scilicet attenuatum et inclinatum.”

......

Loc. cit. vii. "Si quis dixerit, opera omnia quæ ante justificationem fiunt, quacumque ratione facta sint, vere esse peccata, vel odium Dei mereri, anathema sit."

§ Bellarmin de gratia primi hominis cap. ii. Imago ad naturam, similitudo ad virtutes pertinet; proinde Adam peccando non imaginem Dei, sed similitudinem perdidit."