This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
Examination
This point of dispute is one of the most important. Our opponents assert it passionately, because the merit of good works depends upon it. Therefore, they do not content themselves with arguments. Rather, they play a game of ambiguity with the word “sin.” They also allow false accusations against us to enter, as though we had taught that original sin were present in the same manner and fashion with those who have been reborn after Baptism as those who are unregenerate before Baptism! But the matter at hand is illuminated by Scripture as clear as day, as we shall now see.
4:1: The State of the Question and its Bases
[1] We showed above that original sin exists with the unregenerate in both deficiency as well as in concupiscence. Moreover, the decree of divine wrath and eternal death results from guilt. Do we teach that this condition after Baptism is the same as before Baptism? Not at all. For we know from Scripture that in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins takes place by virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection. Likewise, we know from Scripture that Baptism is the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).
[2] Now the first question is this: If in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins occurs perfectly and completely, then is the renewal that begins in Baptism already so complete and finished that nothing of the inherited wickedness or illness remains in the baptized and regenerate? From the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the teaching of experience, and the lament of the pious, the call rings out that in the flesh of the regenerate there still remains much left of the old man: “I do not find a way to do the good I want to do” (Romans 7:15 ff). Although original sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not suddenly removed entirely and eliminated completely from the flesh of the regenerate. Rather, the remnants, deficiencies, and desires of original sin still persist in the flesh of the regenerate during this life.
[6] This inherited concupiscence is forgiven, broken, and lessened in Baptism. But it does not so happen that it is suddenly taken away and completely eradicated so that it is no longer there. For as long as the regenerate live here, the law of sin must be in their members. Nevertheless, this remaining concupiscence does not prevent the regenerate from pleasing God and inheriting eternal life (see Romans 8:1). This is not because concupiscence has become holy or indifferent in them. For it is — as Paul confesses — an evil wickedness, so evil that it wars against the Law of God. Such a force adheres to the regenerate. That such an evil is not reckoned unto damnation is due to the pure grace of God. Therefore the regenerate may not surmise that the concupiscence which clings to them is, when considered on its own, not worthy of damnation. Rather they must recognize how evil concupiscence is. This drives them to thank God that for the sake of His Son and our mediator that that which is so evil is not reckoned unto damnation.
4:2: What the Council Holds regarding Concupiscence
[1] On both sides, we recognize that concupiscence is still present with the baptized. This is why some consider our question to be a mere dispute over words. But the papists maintain that what is really and actually to be considered as sin is removed in Baptism. Let no one believe that they understand this in such a way so as to mean that the remaining concupiscence is not counted for the sake of Christ. They condemn this view.
The Importance of This Dispute
[2] Accordingly, we are not dealing with an idle dispute over words, but with a deeply important matter.
In the first place, it is imperative that we better recognize our misery, so long as we sigh under the burden of this corruptible flesh, lest we enter into pharisaical arrogance.
Second, the Son of God, our mediator, ought to retain His glory and honor. For after Baptism He does not cease to be our reconciler, our righteousness, and our peace, rather He covers, protects, and advocates for us at all times, so long as we live in this flesh.
Third, it is important to maintain the article of justification pure and unadulterated. When believers are reconciled with God in this life, then they please him; but not for the sake of their own purity. Rather, they are blessed through our Lord Jesus Christ, because their sin is covered.
Fourth, it is necessary to purely maintain the teaching concerning the sin that remains in us so that we can rightly understand what Christ says, “When you have done everything, then say: ‘We are unworthy servants.’”
4:3: The Word “Sin”
[1] The matter becomes even more clear when the deceptions stemming from the double meaning of the word “sin” are cut down. Somewhere Augustine claims that the concupiscence which clings to the regenerate is not sin.[1] Our opponents rejoice in all seriousness about this statement of Augustine. In so doing they camouflage the false image which they present to the laity. But in those places where Augustine denies that the concupiscence in the regenerate is sin, he specifically explains what is meant under the term “sin.”[2] See his Ad Bonifacium bk. 1, ch. 13;[3] Ad Valerium bk. 1, ch 24; Against Julian bk. 6, ch. 5.[4] Augustine is clearly using sin to mean the condition in which the Spirit does not strive against the desires of the flesh but obeys them.
We also know the distinction between ruling and nonruling sin, and we teach this distinction carefully in our churches.[5] But this does not concern the papists very much. No, they directly maintain that God has nothing to hate in the regenerate; in them, everything is pure, guiltless, and unblemished.
[2] In Romans 6 and 7 Paul expressly treats the teaching concerning ruling and nonruling, venial, and mortal sin. Precisely at this point the apostle gives the name “sin” to the desire which still clings to the regenerate, even when it is not ruling. And he does not even do it just once, for then it might seem as though this designation had incidentally slipped out. The designation “sin” appears in Romans 6 at least five times and in Romans 7 at least six times.
The papists take that figuratively, as Christ is also called sin in 2 Corinthians 5:21. The Council of Trent explains the word “sin” by metonymy, because concupiscence originates from sin and is inclined towards it. But no one can better and more reliably interpret the words of Paul than Paul himself. In this very place Paul explains in many ways how the word sin is to be understood. He says:
- In my flesh dwells nothing good;
- When I want to do good, sin adheres to me;
- Expressed negatively: The good that I want to do, this I do not do;
- Positively: The evil that I do not want to do, this I do;
- He says that concupiscence conflicts with the commandment “You shall not covet”;
- He says that evil must be crucified, killed, and destroyed;
- Because of this sin, the regenerate Paul calls out, “I am a miserable man, who will rescue me from this body of death?”
Paul clearly calls the concupiscence which is present in the regenerate even after Baptism sin. He does this not only because it is the punishment and cause of sin, but especially because this concupiscence, as something evil, conflicts with the Law of God. For due to its mere existence it would, to use the words of Augustine, drag one down to eternal death, if it were not left unreckoned on account of Christ.
[3] Paul speaks from the Law of God and has this Law in his support when he calls concupiscence sin. Augustine maintains the opposite to the extent that he takes the point of view common among the people. However it may be with Augustine’s popular use of language, I have determined that we must learn from Paul what is truly and actually sin. We must proceed from his biblical manner of speaking.
[4] First, however, the actual point of dispute in relation to the papists must come into consideration, only then the use of language.
4:4: The View of the Ancients concerning Original Sin
[1] It was claimed at Trent that the concupiscence inherent in the regenerate has never actually been considered as sin. We must, therefore, give some attention to how the ancient fathers thought about this point. To do this briefly, let us take Augustine’s examination of the witnesses (Against Julian, bk. 2) as the position of the ancient church.
Ambrose recognized a law of sin in the fact that its power remains in us even though its guilt has been forgiven in Holy Baptism. He calls this law of sin the unrighteousness of our nature because it is unrighteous that the flesh lusts against the Spirit even in the state of our renewal.[6]
[2] Hilary reminds us that our bodies are the stuff of all misdeeds, which sully us.[7] That is why he states regarding the regenerate who strive against lusts that we maintain nothing pure in the heart nor any innocence.
Cyprian warns us, “Let none flatter themselves into thinking they have a pure heart. Let no one rely upon his innocence. Let no one imagine that they need no doctor for their wounds.”[8]
[4] Jerome speaks of a preceding passion with the first excitements to sin.
[5] Augustine repeatedly states that the remaining concupiscence is not good and holy, but wicked; that it resists our salvation; that it is an underlying weakness in relation to the Law of God (e.g. Against Julian, bks. 5 and 6; Tractate 41 on the Gospel of John; On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins). Especially noteworthy is Augustine’s remark against Julian (bk. 5, ch. 3).[9] Having grabbed onto Augustine’s comment that concupiscence in the regenerate is not really sin, Julian claimed that it is therefore not to be rebuked but rather to be praised. Augustine exposes the words in question, arguing that the concupiscence of the flesh, which is lusting in a manner contrary to the good Spirit, is not only a punishment of sin or an inducement thereto, but is also sin itself. It is to be considered sin because an insubordination against the rule of the Spirit is present. Augustine thereby improves and explains in a completely open manner the poorly suited expression of his earlier phrase, namely, that the remaining concupiscence is only the punishment of sin or an inducement thereto.
[7] We confess this view of Augustine as explained above (Against Julian bk. 5, ch. 3). We do this, therefore, because it is taken from Romans 7:22–23. There Paul simply designates concupiscence as sin, because it opposes the Law of God.
4:5: The Arguments of the Papists
[1] At Trent, the following was particularly emphasized: “The baptized have become God’s beloved. Thus, God hates nothing in the regenerate.” But Scripture finds the reason why God loves us not to be in us, but in Christ (Romans 8:38–39).
[2] Moreover, Trent quotes Romans 6:4, “We have been buried with Christ through Baptism into death.” But does it follow from this that original sin in the flesh of the regenerate is suddenly and completely stifled through Baptism? To be sure, Scripture says that in Baptism the old man was put off and the new man put on. Concerning the renewal of the generate, however, Scripture exhorts to put off the old man and to put on the new man (Ephesians 4:22–24; Colossians 3:9–10). Therefore, Scripture would not say that renewal has either been completed in the baptized in this life or that the old has completely passed away, for then our nature would be entirely without spot and stain.
[3] The reason put forward is truly frightening: “The desires cannot harm those who by the power of the grace of Christ strive mightily. Much rather shall the one who has properly battled be crowned.” The devil also cannot, according to 1 Peter 5:8–9, harm the salvation of those who resist him in faith. But concupiscence does not become good because it has been killed and overcome through the Spirit.
[4] Andrada states that not only the guilt but also the stain is taken away from the still-present wicked desire. Therefore, God cannot hate it in those who are regenerate. In addition to this, Andrada makes a lofty and pompous speech: “Is grace really so weak that it cannot readily and entirely remove in Baptism that which is to be considered as sin? Would sin be so strong that neither the grace of God, nor the merit of Christ, nor Baptism’s power and might could overcome it even in Baptism? Has the wickedness of Adam thus done more damage than the merit of Christ can help in the regenerate?” To answer this shortly: To extend a proof inferred from what is possible to what is real is too weak to be convincing. There is a simple and true rule for that which God’s grace, the merit of Christ, and the power of Baptism accomplish in the regenerate, how they prove themselves effective, and in what order. Such statements must be decided and determined from God’s Word. One does not make do with ifs and buts. But even if we had not known the reason why God does not suddenly complete in this life the good work of our renewal that has begun, we would have to content ourselves with the fact that this is the testimony of Scripture. But God does, without a doubt, have certain reasons for His will. To this end, His profound and lofty counsel is, as Augustine says, that we should have to bear something in the weakness of our body against which our spirit must contend. There should be something which drives us to say, “Forgive us our sins.” So that we do not become prideful, we must daily live by the forgiveness of sins.
[5] Andrada also fights with the testimonies of Scripture. Thus, he concludes from 1 Corinthians 6:11, “You are washed, you were sanctified,” that the regenerate are without stains. But these same hearers to whom he had said 1 Corinthians 6:11 Paul later exhorts in 2 Corinthians 7:1, “Let us purify ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit and proceed in sanctification,” and so on. Similarly, Paul admonishes the regenerate in Ephesians 4:22–24 and Colossians 3:9 to set aside and put off the old man. Thus, sanctification begins in this life but is not completed in this life.
[6] It says in Hebrews 1:3, “Who, since He Himself made purification for your sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Here, Andrada emphasizes that the purification of our sins has already taken place. This is certainly true when understood in terms of the sacrifice of Christ by which He made satisfaction for all sins on the cross. But our question is how and when the purification of sins takes place in us. It comes about first of all through forgiveness, then through mortification and renewal. The latter begins and indeed grows in this life but is only complete in that life to come.
[7] The effect of Baptism described in Titus 3:5–6 does not completely and definitively take place at the moment Baptism is administered, but rather extends through the entire life of the regenerate.
[9] Ephesians 5:26–27 also belongs here: “Just as Christ has also loved the church and has given Himself for her, so that He might sanctify her, and has purified her through the washing of water in the Word, so that He might present her to Himself as a church which is glorious, which has neither spot nor wrinkle,” etc. The papists always invoke this statement of Paul as though the apostle had written, “Christ has purified and presented the church, namely in this life immediately after Baptism, without spot or wrinkle.” But the church will only then be glorious, according to Colossians 3:4, “When Christ, your life, shall appear.” “Then,” it says, “you shall also appear with Him in glory.” It is worth mentioning that the Pelagians in opposition to Augustine interpret Ephesians 5:26–27 in almost the exact same way as the papists do. Augustine responds with 1 John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
[17] Also belonging to the unwritten traditions of the Tridentine council is the phrase that not all unlawfulness is sin. But to recognize something as unlawfulness while ridiculing those who humble themselves before God and ask for forgiveness is to trample God’s Law under foot.
[18] In a similar manner Andrada maintains that the phrase “forgiveness of sins” indicates that all fibers of sin down to the very last vestige are blotted out. This would be an entirely new grammar for us!
[19] What John says in 1 John 1:8, “If we say we have no sin,” etc., Andrada understands to mean only the deliberate actual sins of adults. John would then need to be revised according to Andrada!
[20] Enough of Andrada’s excessive brazenness. What can one expect of a council that treats sin so frivolously?
NOTES:
[1] “But if, in like manner, the question be asked of the concupiscence of the flesh, how it is that acts now bring shame which once were free from shame, will not her answer be, that she only began to have existence in men’s members after sin? [XXII.] And, therefore, that the apostle designated her influence as ‘the law of sin,’ inasmuch as she subjugated man to herself when he was unwilling to remain subject to his God; and that it was she who made the first married pair ashamed at that moment when they covered their loins; even as all are still ashamed, and seek out secret retreats for cohabitation, and dare not have even the children, whom they have themselves thus begotten, to be witnesses of what they do. […] Now this concupiscence, this law of sin which dwells in our members, to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the words of the apostle, ‘Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:’—this concupiscence, I say, which is cleansed only by the sacrament of regeneration, does undoubtedly, by means of natural birth, pass on the bond of sin to a man’s posterity, unless they are themselves loosed from it by regeneration. In the case, however, of the regenerate, concupiscence is not itself sin any longer, whenever they do not consent to it for illicit works, and when the members are not applied by the presiding mind to perpetrate such deeds. So that, if what is enjoined in one passage, ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ is not kept, that at any rate is observed which is commanded in another place, ‘Thou shalt not go after thy concupiscences.’ Inasmuch, however, as by a certain manner of speech it is called sin, since it arose from sin, and, when it has the upper hand, produces sin, the guilt of it prevails in the natural man; but this guilt, by Christ’s grace through the remission of all sins, is not suffered to prevail in the regenerate man, if he does not yield obedience to it whenever it urges him to the commission of evil. As arising from sin, it is, I say, called sin, although in the regenerate it is not actually sin; and it has this designation applied to it, just as speech which the tongue produces is itself called ‘tongue;’ and just as the word ‘hand’ is used in the sense of writing, which the hand produces. In the same way concupiscence is called sin, as producing sin when it conquers the will: so to cold and frost the epithet ‘sluggish’ is given; not as arising from, but as productive of, sluggishness; benumbing us, in fact.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book I, Chapters 24-25, NPNF1-05, pg. 543-544, link: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Nuptiis_Et_Concupiscentia_[Schaff],_EN.pdf
[2] “If the question arises, how this concupiscence of the flesh remains in the regenerate, in whose case has been effected a remission of all sins whatever; seeing that human semination takes place by its means, even when the carnal offspring of even a baptized parent is born: or, at all events, if it may be in the case of a baptized parent concupiscence and not be sin, why should this same concupiscence be sin in the offspring?—the answer to be given is this: Carnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward man shall be clothed with incorruption. It does not remain, however, substantially, as a body, or a spirit; but it is nothing more than a certain affection of an evil quality, such as languor, for instance. There is not, to be sure, anything remaining which may be remitted whenever, as the Scripture says, ‘the Lord forgiveth all our iniquities.’ But until that happens which immediately follows in the same passage, ‘Who healeth all thine infirmities, who redeemeth thy life from corruption,’ there remains this concupiscence of the flesh in the body of this death. Now we are admonished not to obey its sinful desires to do evil: ‘Let not sin reign in your mortal body.’ Still this concupiscence is daily lessened in persons of continence and increasing years, and most of all when old age makes a near approach.” – Augustine of Hippo, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter 28, NPNF1-05, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xxviii.html
[3] “With these and such like testimonies [i.e. Romans 3:20-28, Romans 4:13-15, Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 7:1-6] that teacher of the Gentiles showed with sufficient evidence that the law could not take away sin, but rather increased it, and that grace takes it away; since the law knew how to command, to which command weakness gives way, while grace knows to assist, whereby love is infused. And lest any one, on account of these testimonies, should reproach the law, and contend that it is evil, the apostle, seeing what might occur to those who ill understand it, himself proposed to himself the same question. ‘What shall we say, then?’ said he. ‘Is the law sin? Far from it. But I did not know sin except by the law.’ He had already said before, ‘For by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ It is not, therefore, the taking away, but the knowledge of sin.” – A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book I, Chapter 13, NPNF1-05, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xviii.iii.xiii.html
[4] “Would you or your associates believe you are saying anything, if with a pure mind you could realize how great is the evil of concupiscence of the flesh (when what is born of it must needs be reborn, and what is not reborn must be condemned); if you could realize what grace confers when, making full remission of sins in him, it absolves man of the guilt of this evil by which concupiscence made him guilty by way of origin; even though it itself remains and the spirit of the one regenerated wars against it, either using it well in the lesser contest, or refraining entirely from its use, in the greater contest? For we are aware of this evil in its opposition or our restraint of it. Just as the guilt which was remitted only by regeneration was not sensed when it inhered, so its removal is accepted by faith, but not sensed by the flesh or the mind. […] ‘All we who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death.’ Hence, it is true we died to sin in the death of Christ, a death without sin. As a result, both adults and infants have died.” – Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book VI, Chapter 5, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 35, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), pg. 321, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/321/mode/1up
[5] “Let us finally end this discussion of the difference between venial and mortal sin and go on to the seventeenth division of actual sins, in which some sins are called ruling and some nonruling. The latter actually agrees with the former, because mortal sins in the reborn are called ‘ruling,’ but venial sins are called ‘nonruling.’ The foundation for this division is in Rom. 6:12: ‘Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies to make you obey their desires [concupiscentiis].’ Therefore when we do not mortify original concupiscence which clings to our members, but securely indulge in its desires, it becomes a ruling or dominating sin. John 8:34: ‘Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.’ 1 John 3:6, 8–9: ‘Everyone who abides in Christ does not sin. He who commits sin is of the devil. No one born of God commits sin.’ Therefore, in John, it is one thing to sin and to commit sin, that is, to carry out the corrupt concupiscence and the desires of the sinful flesh; but it is another thing to have sin, that is, to feel the impulses of concupiscence. O blessed soul which feels sin but does not consent to sin!” – Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces: On Sin and Free Choice, MO: Concordia Publishing House (2014), Commonplace XIII: On Actual Sins, Chapter XXI, §103.
“For true [and not feigned] contrition must precede; and to those who, in the manner stated, out of pure grace, for the sake of the only Mediator, Christ, without any works and merit, are righteous before God, that is, are received into grace, the Holy Ghost is also given, who renews and sanctifies them, and works in them love to God and to their neighbor. But since the incipient renewal is imperfect in this life, and sin still dwells in the flesh, even in the regenerate, the righteousness of faith before God consists in the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without the addition of our works, so that our sins are forgiven us and covered, and are not imputed.” – Book of Concord, The Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, Article III, §23, link: https://thebookofconcord.org/formula-of-concord-solid-declaration/article-iii/
“It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, … and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” – Book of Concord, Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III, link: https://thebookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/part-iii/article-iii/
[6] “Lastly, Paul teaches us that we must not abandon those who have committed a sin unto death, but that we must rather coerce them with the bread of tears and tears to drink, yet so that their sorrow itself be moderated. […] For as the Lord did not give power to Satan over the soul of holy Job, but allowed him to afflict his body, so here, too, the sinner is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the serpent might lick the dust of his flesh, but not hurt his soul. Let, then, our flesh die to lusts, let it be captive, let it be subdued, and not war against the law of our mind, but die in subjection to a good service, as in Paul, who buffeted his body that he might bring it into subjection, in order that his preaching might become more approved, if the law of his flesh agreed and was consonant with the law of his flesh. For the flesh dies when its wisdom passes over into the spirit, so that it no longer has a taste for the things of the flesh, but for the things of the spirit. Would that I might see my flesh growing weak, would that I were not dragged captive into the law of sin, would that I lived not in the flesh, but in the faith of Christ! And so there is greater grace in the infirmity of the body than in its soundness.” – Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, Book I, Chapter XIII, §59-61, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vi.ii.xiii.html
[7] “Hear, also, what may move you more and trouble you, and, would that it might, change you for the better. Who does not know that the Gallic bishop Hilary is to be revered as the keenest defender of the Catholic Church against the heretics? Note what he says when dealing with the flesh of Christ. ‘Therefore, when He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, He did not have the sin though He had the flesh. But, since all flesh comes from sin–namely, descended from the ancestral sin of Adam–He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that the sin existed in Him, but the likeness of sinful flesh.’ Again he says in his exposition of Psalm 118, when he comes to the words: ‘Let my soul live and praise thee’: ‘He does not think he lives in this life, for he had said: Behold I have been conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me. He knows that he was born of sinful origin and under the law of sin.’ […] St. Hilary says that all flesh comes from sin, with the exception of Him who came in the likeness of sinful flesh, without sin. He says that he is born of sinful origin and under the law of sin, whose words are: ‘I was conceived in inquiry.’” – Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book I, Chapter 2, §9, 32, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 35, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), pg. 9, 38, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/9/mode/1up
“Thus, the law of sin warring against the law of the mind, which existed also in the members of so great an Apostle, is forgiven in baptism, not ended. From this law of the flesh warring against the law of the mind the body of Christ drew nothing to itself, because the Virgin did not conceive from this law. From this law of the flesh warring against the law of the mind there is none who by his first birth does not draw with him this same law itself, because no woman conceives except from the law. And thus the revered Hilary did not hesitate to say that all flesh comes from sin; but did he therefore deny that it comes from God? Just as we say flesh comes from flesh, and also flesh comes from man–do we hereby deny that it comes from God? It is also from God because He creates it, and it is from man because he generates it, and it is from sin which corrupts it.” – Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book II, Chapter 4, §8, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 35, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), pg. 65, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/65/mode/1up
[8] “Let us then acknowledge, beloved brethren, the wholesome gift of the divine mercy; and let us, who cannot be without some wound of conscience, heal our wounds by the spiritual remedies for the cleansing and purging of our sins. Nor let any one so flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart, as, in dependence on his own innocence, to think that the medicine needs not to be applied to his wounds; since it is written, ‘Who shall boast that he hath a clean heart, or who shall boast that he is pure from sins?’ And again, in his epistle, John lays it down, and says, ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’ But if no one can be without sin, and whoever should say that he is without fault is either proud or foolish, how needful, how kind is the divine mercy, which, knowing that there are still found some wounds in those that have been healed, even after their healing, has given wholesome remedies for the curing and healing of their wounds anew!” – Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise VIII: On Works and Alms, §3, ANF, Vol. 5, link: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.viii.html
[9] “You quote a passage from my book: ‘Disobedient man was most deservedly repaid by the disobedience of his flesh, for it would be unjust if he who did not obey his master were obeyed by his own slave, which is to say by his own body.’ You try to show, in consequence, that the disobedience of the flesh must be praiseworthy if it is punishment for sin, and, as though this disobedience were a person, who knowingly afflicted the sinner, you adorn it with lofty speech as ‘an avenger of wrongs and therein a minister of God,’ and consider it a great good. You do not see that by your reasoning you could praise the evil angels, who are, in fact, nothing but ungodly prevaricators, yet God inflicts punishment on sinners through them, as holy Scripture testifies: ‘He sent upon them the wrath of his indignation; indignation and wrath through evil angels.’ Praise them, then; praise Satan their prince, because he also was an avenger of sin when the Apostle gave him one man for the destruction of the flesh. […] Proclaim those very wickened powers, because through them evils are requited evil men, since you proclaim the concupiscence of the flesh because this disobedience has been given in retribution for the disobedience of the sinner. Praise wicked king Saul, because he also was a punishment for sinners […] Praise the demon that king suffered, because it also was punishment for a sinner. Praise the blindness of heart that has befallen Israel, and do not be silent about why it is said: ‘Until the full number of the Gentiles should enter,’ although you will perhaps deny this is a punishment […] This blindness in the Jews was the immense evil of their unbelief, and a great cause of the sin that they put Christ to death. If you deny that blindness was a punishment, you are suffering a like punishment. If you say it is a punishment, but not for sin, you admit that one and the same thing can be both sin and punishment; but, if not for sin, it must be an unjust punishment, and you make God either unjust, commanding or permitting it, or impotent, if it is inflicted and He does not avert it. If you admit it is also for sin, lest by not admitting this you show yourself blind in heart, then see what you do not wish to see, for the question you asked is now answered. The Devil and his angels and the evil kings were not only sinners themselves, but also torments of sinners through the justice of God; nor are they made praiseworthy when through them just punishment is inflicted on those deserving it. Thus, we cannot conclude that because the law in the members warring against the law of the mind is just punishment for him who has acted unjustly, this law itself acts justly; and the blindness of heart which only God’s illumination removes is not only sin, in which a man does not believe in God; as well as punishment for sin, in which a proud heart is punished by deserved censure; but also a cause of sin, when evil is committed in the error of that blind heart. In like manner, the concupiscence of the flesh against which a good spirit lusts is not only a sin, because it is disobedience against the dominion of the mind–as well as punishment for sin, because it has been reckoned as the wages of disobedience–but also a cause of sin, in the failure of him who consents to it or in the contagion of birth.” – Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, Book 5, Chapter 3, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 35, NY: Fathers of the Church Inc. (1957), pg. 247-249, link: https://archive.org/details/againstjulian0035augu/page/247/mode/1up
