Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Justification · Book IV: On the Justice of Works
Chapter 14: The objections of the heretics are solved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. VI, De Justificatione, Book IV. 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).
It remains that we briefly dissolve the arguments of the heretics. First, Calvin in the Antidote and Chemnitz in the Examination object that of St. Peter, Acts 15: Why tempt you to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? But by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. For these words are said to the faithful, not to the unfaithful, lest perhaps it be answered that the law is an unbearable yoke without grace and to the unregenerate, but not to the reborn, and to those who have the grace of God. Moreover these words ought to be understood of every law, both ceremonial and moral: both because the ceremonies of the law alone do not surpass human powers, and because the adversative particle “but” opposes grace to the law simply, and because, if the ceremonial law is an unbearable yoke, how much more will the moral law be an unbearable yoke? I answer: St. Peter speaks only of the ceremonial law. Which I prove evidently: first, from the occasion of those words. For St. Luke writes that certain of the disciples rose up who said that the Gentiles converted to the faith must be circumcised and altogether keep the law of Moses; and that this was the cause why the Apostles gathered the Council, to see about this word. It is clear, then, that of circumcision and other ceremonies of that kind the Apostle Peter spoke. Second, the same is proved from the decree of that Council, which was constituted according to the sentence of Peter. For thus the decree runs: It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. I ask, then, whether these are said to be the only necessary things out of the ceremonial law of the Jews, or out of every law simply. If out of the ceremonial law of the Jews, we have what we will. If out of every law simply, this absurdity will follow: that it is not necessary for a Christian not to worship idols, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to kill, not to bear false witness, and the others of which the Apostle says, Galatians 5, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. They will say, perhaps, that all these are indeed necessary, but that men are not thence justified. But are men justified out of those four which alone are said to be necessary? Third, the same thing can be proved from the very sum of the decree and of the words of Peter. For Peter and the other Apostles will to remove the yoke of the law from the necks of the disciples. But what is it to remove the yoke of the law — to take away the obligation and abrogate the law, or to take away the opinion of justification, and teach that no one is justified by that law? If they say that to remove the yoke is to take away the obligation, then no law will any longer obligate Christians, except the law about things offered to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication, if by the law be understood every law, not only ceremonial, but also moral. But that this is most absurd not even the adversaries themselves will dare deny. If they say that to take away the yoke is not to take away the obligation, but only the opinion of justification, then the ceremonial law about circumcision, sabbaths, new moons, sacrifices of cattle will not be taken away as to the obligation. But this conflicts with the Apostle, who writes to the Galatians 5: If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. We are compelled, then, to say that the Apostles called the ceremonial law an unbearable yoke, and declared that its obligation was altogether taken away through Christ; yet that the same Apostles willed certain few ceremonies about blood, things strangled, and things offered to idols to be observed by the Gentiles for a time, to which they joined abstinence from fornication, because fornication among the Gentiles was not held for a sin, as adultery, murder, perjury, and the like were held. To that, then, which they object, that the ceremonies of the law do not surpass human powers, especially the grace of God being added, I answer that it is true, and therefore Zachary and Elizabeth walked in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame; but that yet it is called an unbearable yoke, since it was borne with grief and difficulty, as St. Thomas rightly expounds, on the 2nd of the Sentences, distinction 28, sole question, article 4, to the 3rd, and Nicholas of Lyra on this place of the Acts; and Theophylact, expounding that of Matthew 23 and Luke 11, They bind heavy and unbearable burdens on men’s shoulders. But to that, that the adversative particle, “But by the grace of God,” etc., seems to oppose grace to the law simply, I answer that St. Peter indicated two reasons why Christians were not to be obligated to the ceremonies of the law. One, that those ceremonies were a most grievous yoke. The other, that they were useless unto justification. And so this is the sense of the words of St. Peter: Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither we nor our fathers could bear? — especially since not by those ceremonies, but by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, as they too were saved — where in that adversative particle is included, or implicitly contained, that other reason about the uselessness of the ceremonies. To that, that the moral law is heavier than the ceremonial, and accordingly is more justly to be called an unbearable yoke than the ceremonial, I answer that the ceremonial law ought not to be compared with the moral precisely, but the ceremonial law joined to the moral ought to be compared with the moral itself, the ceremonial removed. For the ceremonial law is not called an unbearable yoke because it alone is unbearable, but since, joined to the moral law, it vehemently increases the burden, and becomes a yoke almost unbearable to a man already burdened with the moral law. Wherefore the moral law, the Jewish ceremonial removed, is not an unbearable yoke to one having the grace of God, but a sweet yoke and a light burden; and the Jewish ceremonial law, joined to the moral, is a most grievous yoke, so that it can be called unbearable. For although through the grace of God it was borne by some, yet even they are rightly said to have been unable to bear it, since they bore it not without great labor and sweat.
The second objection of Calvin is of this kind: Paul, Galatians 3, assumes as confessed that the law is impossible, when he says: As many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things which are written in the book of the law. Where the Apostle weaves this argument: He is cursed who keeps not the whole law, as Moses says, “Cursed is every one that abideth not,” etc.; therefore they who are of the works of the law — that is, who will to be justified by fulfilling the law — are cursed. Which consequence is none, unless that assumption be understood: But no one can keep the whole law. So, then, the entire argument will have to be framed thus: Cursed is every one who keeps not the whole law; no one can keep the whole law; therefore cursed is every one who is of the works of the law — that is, who, as subject to the law, seeks to be justified from its observance. I answer: the assumption necessary that the argumentation of the Apostle may conclude what he intends is not that, “But no one can keep the whole law,” but this, “But no one can keep the whole law by his own powers, without faith and grace.” That too, “They who are of the works of the law are under a curse,” does not signify that those are cursed who seek to be justified by fulfilling the law — since the same Apostle says, Romans 2, The doers of the law shall be justified — but signifies that those are cursed who believe that they can by their own powers, without faith and grace, fulfil the law and be justified. For a little before he had said that those who are of faith are to be blessed with faithful Abraham, because it is written: In thy seed shall all nations be blessed. Then, opposing to faith works without faith, he subjoins: For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. And so the Apostolic argument is this: Cursed is every one who keeps not the whole law; but no one can by his own powers, without faith and grace, keep the whole law; therefore cursed are all those who are of the works of the law — that is, who by their own powers, without faith and grace, seek to keep the whole law, and in that manner to be justified. And hence we understand what follows: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us — that it signifies not, as the adversaries believe, that we are freed from the law by the non-imputation of transgression, but (as we have often said) that we are freed from the curse, because through the faith and grace of Christ we can fulfil the law and do fulfil it. Someone will say: the Apostle Paul in that place speaks of the law of circumcision, not of the moral law, as we too said above when we treated of Christian liberty; but the law of circumcision he contends is altogether to be taken away, or is taken away; therefore he says that those are cursed not who keep not the law from faith and grace, but who will to keep it in any manner whatever. I answer: blessed Paul in the epistle to the Galatians, as also in the epistle to the Romans, refutes two errors of the Judaizers, of which one is the reason of the other. One of their errors was that the law of circumcision and of other ceremonies of that kind must be kept. The other error was that the law of circumcision must therefore be kept, since the observance of the law was a necessary preparation for the faith and grace of Christ, and therefore that all could and ought to keep the law and be justified, that they might be worthy of the Gospel and the promises of Christ. The Apostle, then, against the former error, says that the ceremonial law was as it were a pedagogue, and imposed for a time, and is no longer to be kept — and this we said when we treated of Christian liberty. Against the latter error, which was more pernicious, the Apostle says that from the works of the law without faith there can be no justice, and that otherwise Christ died in vain; and in this disputation against the latter error he speaks of every law, not only ceremonial, but also moral. For there is no law which without faith and grace can justify.
The third objection is taken from those words of the Apostle, Romans 7: To will is present with me, but to accomplish that which is good I find not. I answer: the Apostle speaks of the act of coveting, which we often feel, when we even consent not. For although it be no sin to feel carnal concupiscence and not consent, yet a chaste man would not feel it, and counts it part of his unhappiness that he is compelled, even unwilling, to serve in the flesh the law of sin. Hence, then, the Apostle says: To will is present with me, but to accomplish I find not. And: Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? See Augustine, tractate 41 on John, book 6 against Julian, chapter 11, and book 1 to Boniface, chapter 10. The fourth objection: no one can avoid all sins, since it is written, James 3, In many things we all offend; and 1 John 1, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves. But he who fulfilled the whole law would have no sin at all; therefore it cannot be that the whole law be fulfilled by us, even with faith and grace. I answer: from this argument, which Chemnitz greatly presses, they do not so easily extricate themselves who grant that a venial sin is properly against the law, as Vega, book 11 on the Council, chapter 20; for they are compelled to say that the law is not impossible, not because it can be kept whole at once, but because the greater part of it can be kept, and the denomination be made from the better part. But let them see what they answer to the Apostle James saying: Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all. The solid answer, then, is that venial sins, without which we do not live, are not sins simply, but imperfectly and in a certain respect, nor are they against the law, but beside the law, as St. Thomas rightly teaches in 1.2, question 88, article 1. For hence all things cohere. For he who offends in one point — transgressing, namely, one precept — is become guilty of all, and is constituted simply unjust; and yet in many things we all offend, because, although we do nothing against the law, yet we do many things beside the law. And he who is born of God sins not, by transgressing the law; and yet if we say that we have no sin — namely, doing nothing beside the law — we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
The fifth objection: Christ is Mediator not only in the first reconciliation, but also afterward in the whole time of our life; therefore we always need the intercession of Christ, and thereby always sin and transgress the law; otherwise, after the first reconciliation, Christ would be idle. This argument is common to Calvin, Philip, Chemnitz, and others, who thence conclude that, if there is in us any fulfilment of the law, it is not so much of works which answer to the perfection of the law as of faith, which perpetually apprehends remission. I answer: Christ is always Mediator to us, nor is he ever idle, and that for a double reason. First, since he always supplies to us the powers and grace by which we may do good works. For therefore he rightly compared himself to a vine and us to branches. For as a branch cannot bear fruit unless it abide in the vine, and draw the sap from the vine, so neither we, unless we abide in Christ, and draw the spirit from him. Second, since he purges our sins, though light and daily, and his blood cleanses us from all sin. And if perhaps by transgressing the law we fall from justice, he is nonetheless the propitiation for our sins, and not seven times, but seventy times seven, reconciles us to the Father, if by his grace, being converted, we begin seriously to do penance. And so it is not we, who say the law can be fulfilled, that make Christ the Mediator idle; but the adversaries truly make the merits of Christ inefficacious, when they teach that Christ, with so signal an obedience, could not effect that the justification of the law should be fulfilled in us. The sixth objection is taken from St. Augustine, who in book 1 of the Retractations, chapter 19, thus says: “All the commandments are reckoned as done, when whatever is not done is pardoned.” I answer: St. Augustine in that place speaks of the highest perfection of fulfilling the precepts, which he says was expressed by the Lord in those words, Matthew 5, One jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled; but he asks whether this perfection can be had in this life, and answers that it cannot be had, save in this sense, that all the commandments are reckoned as done when whatever is not done is pardoned. For among the other commandments to be fulfilled is also that we pray, “Forgive us our debts.” From which we understand that the imperfection in keeping the divine law which is asserted by Augustine is not a transgression of an entire precept, but a lack of perfection in the very observance of the law — in the manner of one who, in writing or pronouncing the law, should pronounce indeed all the words and syllables, but not express some little letter, or part of a letter. For this similitude the Lord used, when he said not, “one word,” but “one jot, or one tittle, shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” And these things are said to explain the mind of St. Augustine in that testimony. For otherwise, if Augustine had openly said, “all the commandments are reckoned as done when, if any commandment is violated, it is pardoned,” it neither ought nor could thence be gathered that the law of the Lord is impossible. For it can be that one keep many commandments entirely, and yet afterward fulfil not some other commandment, of which transgression he does penance, and, indulgence being obtained, is so saved as if he had kept all the commandments. Another objection could be added, from the precepts, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart,” and, “Thou shalt not covet.” For that these two cannot be fulfilled in this life the adversaries prove from Augustine and Bernard. But these have been treated by us at length in book 2 On Monks, chapter 13, and in book 2 On Original Sin, which is the fifth On the State of Sin, chapter 10. Therefore they seem to be here passed over, lest we weary the reader with too much repetition.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Solvuntur objectiones hxreticorum. i Superest ut argumenta haereticorum bre¬ viter dissolvamus. Primo objiciunt Calvinus in Antidoto, et Kemnitius in Examin. illud S. Petri A- ctor. xv. Quid lentalis imponere jugum super cervices discipulorum, quod nec nos, nec pa¬ tres nostri portare potuimus ? sed per gratiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi credimus salvari, quemadmodum et illi. Haec enim verba di¬ cuntur fidelibus, non infidelibus, ne forte respondeatur, legem esse jugum importabi¬ le sine gratia et non renatis, non autem re¬ natis, et qui gratiam Dei habent. Praeterea intelligi debent haec verba de omni lege, tam caeremoniali, quam morali, tum quia solae caeremoniae legis non superant vires humanas, tum quia particula adversativa, (( sed », opponit gratiam legi simpliciter, tum quia si caeremonialis lex jugum est im¬ portabile, quanto magis lex moralis jugum erit importabile ? Respondeo : non loquitur S. Petrus nisi de lege caeremoniali. Id quod evidenter probo, primum ex occasione illorum ver¬ borum. Scribit enim S. Lucas, surrexisse quosdam ex discipulis, qui dicerent, opor¬ tere gentiles conversos ad fidem circumcidi, et Mosis legem omnino servare : atque istam fuisse causam, cur Apostoli Concilium coe¬ gerint, ut viderent de verbo hoc. Perspi¬ cuum est igitur, de circumcisione aliisque id genus caeremoniis Apostolum Petrum esse locutum. Secundo, idem probatur ex decreto illius Concilii, quod juxta Petri sententiam consti¬ tutum fuit. Sic enim habet decretum : Vi¬ sum est Spiritui sancto et nobis, nihil ultra imponere vobis oneris, quam hxc necessaria, ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulacro¬ rum, a sanguine, suffocato et fornicatione. Quaero igitur, utrum ista dicantur sola ne¬ cessaria ex lege caeremoniali Judaeorum, an ex omni lege simpliciter. Si ex lege Cceremo- niali Judsorum, habemus quod volumus. Si ex omni lege simpliciter, id sequetur ab¬ surdi, ut non sit necessarium Christiano non colere idola, non moechari, non furari, non occidere, non falsum testimonium dicere, et alia, de quibus Apostolus ait Gal. v. Quo¬ niam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non conse- quentur. Dicent fortasse, necessaria qui¬ dem esse haec omnia, sed non inde homines justificari. At num ex illis quatuor, quae so¬ la dicuntur necessaria, homines justifican¬ tur ? Tertio, probari potest res eadem ex ipsa summa decreti, et verborum Petri, Volunt enim Petrus et Apostoli cieteri removere ju¬ gum legis a cervicibus discipulorum. Quid vero est removere jugum legis, tollere obli¬ gationem, atque abrogare legem, an tollere opinionem justificationis, ac docere, nemi- (1) Rom. VIII, 2.— pi) Joan. 1, 13;ibid. III, 3: I Pet. II, 2; I Joan. IV, 7; Rom. VIII, 15.-(3) Act. XV, 10. - (4) Gal. V, 21. CAPUT XIV. 323 nem per eam legem justificari ? si dixerint, removere jugum, esse tollere obligationem, ergo nulla jam amplius lex obligabit Chri¬ stianos, excepta lege de immolatis simula¬ crorum, sanguine, suffocato et fornicatione, si per legem intelligatur lex omnis non so¬ lum ca)remonialis, sed etiam moralis. Atqui hoc absurdissimum esse neque ipsi quidem adversarii negare audebunt. Si dixerint tol¬ lere jugum, non esse tollere obligationem, sed opinionem tantum justificationis, ergo lex caeremonialis de circumcisione, sabba¬ tis, neomeniis, sacrificiis pecorum non erit sublata, quoad obligationem. Atqui id repugnat Apostolo, qui ad Gala¬ tas v. scribit : Si circumcidemini , Christus vobis nihil proderit (1). Cogimurigiturdicere, Apostolos jugum importabile appellasse le¬ gem caeremonialem, atque ejus obligationem declarasse per Christum omnino esse subla¬ tam. Voluisse tamen eosdem Apostolos pau¬ cas quasdam caeremonias de sanguine, suffo¬ cato et immolatis idolorum a gentibus ad tempus obsei’vari, quibus adjunxerunt con¬ tinentiam a fornicatione, quod fornicatio apud Gentiles non haberetur pro peccato, sicut habebatur adulterium, homicidium, perjurium et alia id genus. Ad illud igitur quod objiciunt, caeremo¬ nias legis non superare vires humanas prae- sertim addita gratia Dei, respondeo verum esse, et ideo Zachariam et Elisabetham am¬ bulasse in omnibus mandatis, et justifica¬ tionibus Domini sine querela, sed tamen dici jugum importabile, quoniam aegre ac diffi¬ culter portabatur, ut recte exponit S. Tho- mas in 2. sentent. dist. 28. quaest. unica, art. 4, ad 3. et Nicolaus Lyranus in hunc locum Actorum. EtTheophylactus exponens illud Matth. xxm, et Luc, xi. Alligant one¬ ra gravia et importabilia in humeros homi¬ num (2). Ad illud autem, quod adversativa parti¬ cula, Sed per gratiam Dei ctc. videatur op¬ ponere gratiam legi simpliciter, respondeo, S. Petrum duas rationes indicasse, cur non essent obligandi Christiani ad caeremonias legis. Unam, quod ea) caeremoniee essent jugum gravissimum. Alteram, quod essent inutiles ad justifica¬ tionem. Itaque sensus hic est verborum S. Petri : Quid tentatis Deum, imponere jugum super cervices discipulorum, quod nec nos, nec patres nostri portare potuimus ? prae- sertirn cum non per eas CEeremonias, sed per gratiam Domini nostri Jesu Christi cre¬ damus salvari, sicut et illi salvati sunt :■ ubi in illa particula adversativa includitur, sive implicite continetur altera illa ratio de inu¬ tilitate caeremoniarum. Ad illud quod lex moralis sit gravior caeremoniali, ac proinde justius dicenda sit jugum importabile, quam caeremonialis, re¬ spondeo legem caeremonialem non debere comparari cum morali praecise, sed conferri debere legem caeremonialem adjunctam mo¬ rali, cum ipsa morali remota caeremoniali. Non enim lex caeremonialis dicitur jugum importabile, quia sola ipsa sit importabilis, sed quoniam adjuncta legi morali, auget ve¬ hementer onus, et fit jugum fere importabi¬ le homini jam onerato lege morali. Quare lex moralis, remota caeremoniali Judaica, non est jugum importabile habenti gratiam Dei, sed jugum suave, et onus leve ; et lex caere¬ monialis Judaica, adjuncta morali, jugum est gravissimum, ita ut importabile dici possit. Quamvis enim per gratiam Dei portatum fuerit a nonnullis, tamen recte dicuntur etiam illi portare non potuisse, quod non sine ma¬ gno labore et sudore portarunt. Secunda objectio Calvini ejusmodi est, Paulus ad Galat. m. pro confesso assumit le¬ gem esse impossibilem, cum dicit : Qui ex operibus legis sunt , sub maledicto sunt. Scri¬ ptum est enim, maledictus omnis qui non per¬ manserit in omnibus, quae scripta sunt in libro legis hujus (1). Ubi hoc argumentum texit Apostolus : Maledictus est qui non servat to¬ tam legem, ut Moses dicit : Maledictus omnis qui non permanet ctc., igitur qui ex operibus legis sunt, id est, qui justificari volunt im¬ plendo legem, maledicti sunt. Quae consecu¬ tio nulla est, nisi subinteilligatur assumptio ista. Atqui-nullus legem totam servare potest. Sic igitur argumentum integrum conficien¬ dum erit: Maledictus omnis, qui totam legem non servat; Nemo potest legem totam ser¬ vare ; igitur maledictus omnis qui ex operi¬ bus legis est, id est, qui ut legi subjectus ex ipsiu& observatione justificari quEerit. Respondeo : Assumptio necessaria, ut ar¬ gumentatio Apostoli concludat, quod ipse in¬ tendit, non est illa : Atqui nemo totam le¬ gem servare potest; sed ista: Atqui nemo suis viribus, sine fide et gratia servare po- (Ij Gal. V, 2. - (2) Matth. XXIII, 4. — (3) Gal. III, 10. SI6 LIBER IT. test iotam legem. Illud quoque : qui ex ope-% ribus legis sunt , sub maledicto sunt , non si¬ gnificat, eos esse maledictos, qui legem im¬ plendo justificari quaerunt, cum dicat idem Apostolus ad Rom. xi. Factores legis justifi¬ cabuntur; sed significat, maledictos esse eos, qui suis viribus sine fide et gratia legem im¬ plere, et justificari se posse credunt. Nam paulo ante dixerat, eos qui ex fide sunt, be¬ nedicendos esse cum fidei Abrahamo, quia scriptum est : Benedicentur in semine tuo om¬ nes gentes. Inde opponens fidei opera sine fi¬ de, subjungit: Quicumque enim ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt. Itaque argumentum Apostolicum est boc : Maledictus est omnis qui non servat totam legem, at nemo potest suis viribus, sine fide et giatia totam legem servare, igitur male¬ dicti sunt omnes illi, qui ex opexibus legis sunt, id est, qui suis viribus, sine fide et gratia totam legem servare, et eo modo ju¬ stificari quaerunt. Atque hinc intelligimus id quod sequitur : Christus nos libravit de male¬ dicto legis factus pro nobis maledictum. Non significare, ut adversarii credunt, nos libe¬ ratos a lege per non imputationem praevari¬ cationis, sed (ut nos saepe diximus) nos libe¬ ratos a maledicto, quia per Christi fidem et gratiam legem implere possumus et imple¬ mus. Dicet aliquis : Apostolus Paulus loquitur eo loco de lege circumcisionis, non de lege morali, ut nos etiam supradiximus cumage- i'emus de libertate Christiana . legem autem cii’Cumcisionis omnino tollendam, vel subla¬ tam esse contendit : non igitur maledictos eos esse dicit, qui legem non servant ex fide et gi'atia, sed qui eam quomodocumque sei‘vare volunt. Respondeo : Beatus Paulus in epistola ad Galatas, ut etiam in epistola ad Romanos, duos errores Judaizantium, quorum unus est ratio alterius, refellit. Unus error eorum erat, servandam esse legem circumcisionis, atque aliarum id genus caeremoniarum. Alter error erat, ideo servandam esse le¬ gem circumcisionis, quoniam observatio le¬ gis esset necessaria praeparatio ad fidem et gratiam Christi, et ideo possent et deberent omnes servare legem, et justificari, ut digni essent Evangelio et promissis Christi. Apo¬ stolus igitur contra priorem errorem, dicit legem caeremonialem fuisse quasi paedago- um , et ad tempus impositam, non esse am¬ plius servandam, et hoc diximus cum age¬ remus de libertate Christiana. Contra poste- liorem errorem, qui perniciosior ei’at, Apo¬ stolus dicit, ex operibus legis sine fide nul¬ lam posse esse justitiam, et alioqui Christum gratis mortuum esse, et in hac disputatione contra posteriorem errorem loquitur de omni lege, non solum caeremoniali, sed etiam mo¬ rali. Nulla enim lex est, quae sine fide et gra¬ tia justificai-e possit. Tertia objectio sumitur ex illis verbis Apo¬ stoli ad Itoman. vn. Velle adjacet mihi , per¬ ficere autem non invenio (1). Respondeo : loquitur Apostolus de actu concupiscendi, quem sajpe sentimus, quando etiam non consentimus. Quamvis enim non sit peccatum sentire carnalem concupiscen¬ tiam, et non consentire, tamen nollet homo castus eam sentire, et in partem in fcelicitatis suae ponit, quod cogatur etiam nolens, carne servire legi peccati. Hinc igitur Apostolus dicit : Velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem non invenio. Et : Infoelix ego homo f quis me Ubera¬ bit de corpore mortis hujus ? Vide Augusti¬ num tract. 41. in Joan. lib. vi. in Julian. cap. 11. et lib. i. ad Bonifacium cap. 10. Quarta objectio, nemo potest vitare omnia peccata, cum scriptum sit Jacobi n. 3. In multis offendimus omnes. Et I Joan. I. Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus , nos ipsos seducimus. At qui legem omnem imple¬ ret, nullum haberet omnino peccatum : igi¬ tur fieri non potest, ut lex omnis a nobis, etiam cum fide et gratia, impleatur. Respondeo : Ab hoc argumento, quod valde Kemnitius urget, non tam facile se expediunt, qui concedunt, peeeatum veniale esse pi’0- pi’ie eontra legem, ut Vega lib. xx. in Con¬ cilium cap. 20. coguntur enim dicere, legem non esse impossibilem, non quod tota simul servari possit, sed quod servari possit major ejus pars, et a meliori parte fiat denominatio. Sed videndum est illis, quid respondeant Apostolo Jacobo dicenti : Quicumque totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, fa¬ ctus est omnium reus. Solida igitur responsio est, peccata venia¬ lia, sine quibus non vivimus, non esse pec¬ cata simpliciter, sed imperfecte, et secun¬ dum quid, neque esse contra legem, sed prseter legem, ut S. Thomas recte docet in 1. 2. quaxst 88. art. 1. hinc enim omnia co- (1) Rom. VII, 18. - (2) Jacob. 111,2; IJoan. I, 8. CAPUT XV. 327 haerent. Nam qui offendit in uno, praevari- . cans videlicet unum praeceptum, factus est omnium reus, et injustus simpliciter consti¬ tuitur, et tamen in multis offendimus omnes, quia tametsi nihil facimus contra legem, tamen multa facimus praeter legem. Et qui natus est ex Deo non peccat, transgrediendo legem, et tamen si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nihil videlicet praeter legem faciendo, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. Quinta objectio, Christus Mediator est non solum in prima reconciliatione, sed etiam postea in toto vitae nostrae tempore, ergo semper egemus intercessione Christi, ac per hoc semper peccamus legemque transgredi¬ mur, alioqui post primam reconciliationem Christus otiosus esset. Hoc argumentum commune est Calvino, Philippo, Kemnitio et aliis, qui inde concludunt, si qua est in no¬ bis legis impletio, illam non tam esse operum, quae respondeant perfectioni * legis, quam fidei, quae perpetuo apprehendit remissio - nem. Respondeo : Christus semper nobis Media¬ tor est, nec unquam est otiosus, idque du¬ plici ratione. Primo, quoniam semper nobis vires et gratiam subministrat, per quam bona opera faciamus. Ideo siquidem recte comparavit se ipse viti et nos palmitibus. Ut enim palmes non potest ferre fructum, nisi manserit in vite, et succum traxerit ex vite, sic nec nos nisi manserimus in Christo, et spiritum hauserimus ex ipso. Secundo, quoniam peccata nostra, quam¬ vis levia et quotidiana, ipse purgat, et san¬ guis ejus emundat nos ab omni peccato. Et si forte legem praevaricando a justitia exci¬ damus, ipse nihilominus propitiatio est pro peccatis nostris, et non septies, sed septua¬ gies septies nos Patri reconciliat, si per ejus gratiam conversi serio poenitentiam agere incipiamus. Itaque non fuimus nos, qui le¬ gem impleri posse dicimus, Christum Media¬ torem otiosum, sed vere faciunt adversarii Christi merita ineflicacia, cum docent Chri¬ stum tam insigni obedientia id efficere non potuisse, ut justificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Sexta objectio sumitur ex S. Augustino, qui in lib. 1 Retract. cap. 19. sic ait : « Om¬ nia mandata facta deputantur, quando quic- quid non sit. ignoscitur » . Respondeo : loquitur eo loco sanctus Au¬ gustinus de summa perfectione implendi praecepta, quam dicit expressam fuisse a Domino per illa verba, Matthaei v. Iota unum, aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege , donec omnia fiant ; quaerit autem num haec per¬ fectio possit haberi in hac vita, et respon¬ det, non posse haberi, nisi in hoc sensu quod omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. Nam in¬ ter alia mandata implenda est etiam illud, ut oremus : Dimitte nobis debita nostra. Ex quo intelligimus eam imperfectionem in lege di¬ vina servanda asseri ab Augustino, quae non sit praevaricatio integri praecepti, sed caren¬ tia perfectionis in ipsa legis observatione, quomodo qui scribendo, aut proferendo le¬ gem, proferret quidem omnes dictiones et syllabas, sed litterulam, aut litterae partem aliquam non exprimeret. Hac enim similitu¬ dine Dominus usus est, cum non ait, verbum unum, sed iota unum, aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant. Atque haec dicta sint ad mentem sancti Augustini in eo testimonio explicandam, Alioqui enim si aperte dixisset Augustinus omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando si quod mandatum violatur, ignoscitur : non deberet, nec posset inde colligi, legem Do¬ mini esse impossibilem. Potest enim fieri, ut quis multa mandata integre servaverit, et postea tamen aliquod aliud mandatum non impleat, cujus praevaricationis poenitentiam agat, et indulgentia impetrata ita salvetur, ac si mandata omnia custodisset. Addi posset alia objectio ex praeceptis : Diliges, Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo ; et : Non concupisces. Haec enim duo in hac vita impleri non posse probant adversa¬ rii ex Augustino et Bernardo. Sed haec a no¬ bis fuse tractata sunt in lib. 2. de Monachis, cap. 13. et in lib. 2. de peccato originis, qui est quintus de statu peccati, cap. 10. Ideo videntur hoc loco praetermittenda, ne fatige¬ mus nimia repetitione lectorem.