Part 13
"Christ bore all our sins in his body upon the tree."
—1 Peter 2:24
Saint Paul teaches that sin was condemned in Christ's flesh when he was made sin for us. That is, the whole power and curse of sin were slain in his flesh when he was offered as a sacrifice for us, upon whom the entire burden of our sins was cast, together with their curse and condemnation, the judgment of God, and the sentence of death.
Here we hear nothing of those fables and falsehoods which say that after baptism none of us participates in the power of Christ's death except insofar as he makes satisfaction for his sins by repentance. Rather, whenever we have sinned, Scripture calls us back to the one satisfaction of Christ.
Consider their accursed doctrine: that the grace of God works alone in the first forgiveness, but if we afterward fall, our works cooperate in obtaining pardon. If this were true, how could the testimonies we have cited apply to Christ?
What a vast difference there is between saying that our iniquities were laid upon Christ to be cleansed in him and saying that they are cleansed by our works; between saying that Christ is the propitiation for our sins and saying that God must be appeased by our works!
And if the conscience is to be given rest, what tranquility will it gain from hearing that sins must be redeemed by satisfaction? When will it ever be assured that its satisfaction has been fulfilled? It will therefore always doubt whether God is gracious to it and will remain in perpetual torment and horror.
Those who content themselves with light satisfactions hold God's justice in far too much contempt and do not sufficiently consider how grievous the guilt of sin is, as we have said elsewhere. And even if we granted them that certain sins could be redeemed, what would they do when burdened with so many sins that a hundred lifetimes, devoted to nothing else, could not suffice to make satisfaction for them?
Here they take refuge in a frivolous distinction: that some sins are mortal and others venial; that the former require a great satisfaction, while the latter may be cleansed by easy remedies, such as reciting the Lord's Prayer, taking holy water, and receiving the absolution of the Mass. In this manner they make sport of God and mock him.
But although the words mortal sin and venial sin are continually upon their lips, they have never yet known how to distinguish the one from the other, except that they make the ungodliness and uncleanness of the human heart—which is the most horrible sin before God—a venial sin.
We, on the contrary, according to the teaching of Scripture, which is the rule of good and evil, declare:
"The wages of sin is death."
—Romans 6:23
And:
"The soul that sins shall die."
—Ezekiel 18:4
Nevertheless, the sins of believers are venial, not because they do not deserve death, but because, through the mercy of God:
"There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
—Romans 8:1
Their sins are not imputed to them but are blotted out by grace.
I know how they slander this doctrine, saying that it is the Stoic paradox which made all sins equal.
But they will easily be convicted by their own mouths. For I ask whether, among the sins they confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater than another. It does not therefore follow that sins are equal merely because they are equally mortal.
Now, since Scripture determines that death is the wages of sin, and that just as obedience to the Law is the way of life, so transgression is
death, they cannot escape this sentence. What means will they find, then, to make satisfaction for such a multitude of sins?
Suppose satisfaction for one sin can be made in a single day. While they are making it, they will commit several more, since no day passes in which even the righteous man does not sin many times. And when they attempt to make satisfaction for several sins, they will commit still more, until they enter a bottomless abyss. I am speaking even of the most righteous.
Thus every confidence in making satisfaction has already been taken away. What, then, do they dream or expect? How do they still dare imagine that they can make satisfaction?
They endeavor to extricate themselves, but they cannot succeed. They invent a distinction between punishment and guilt. They confess that guilt is forgiven by the mercy of God, but they say that after guilt has been forgiven, punishment remains, which God's justice requires to be paid. Satisfactions, therefore, pertain to the remission of punishment.
What inconsistency is this? They now make the forgiveness of guilt free, although elsewhere they command it to be merited by prayers, tears, and other preparations.
But everything taught to us in Scripture directly opposes this distinction. Although I believe this has already been sufficiently proved above, I shall produce several more testimonies which, I trust, will so tightly constrain these serpents that they will be unable even to bend the tips of their tails.
Jeremiah says that this is the new covenant God has made with us in his Christ:
"I will remember their iniquities no more."
—Jeremiah 31:34
We learn from another Prophet what is meant by this, where the Lord says:
"If the righteous man turns aside from his righteousness, I will no longer remember any of his righteousness. If the sinner turns away from his iniquity, I will no longer remember any of his offenses."
—Ezekiel 18:21–24
When he says that he will no longer remember the righteous man's righteousness, he means that he will pay no regard to it in order to reward it. Conversely, therefore, not to remember sins means not to punish them.
This is what Scripture means elsewhere when it speaks of God casting sins behind his back, blotting them out like a cloud, casting them into the depths of the sea, not imputing them, and covering them. By such expressions the Holy Spirit has explained his meaning clearly enough, if only we would make ourselves teachable and listen to him.
Certainly, if God punishes sins, he imputes them; if he takes vengeance upon them, he remembers them; if he summons them to judgment, he does not keep them covered; if he examines them, he
has not cast them behind his back; if he regards them, he has not blotted them out like a cloud; and if he brings them forward, he has not cast them into the depths of the sea.
Now let us hear from the Prophet upon what condition the Lord forgives sins:
"Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be made white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."
—Isaiah 1:18
In Jeremiah it is likewise said:
"In that day the iniquity of Jacob will be sought, but it will not be found. Indeed, it will be nothing, because I will show mercy to the remnant whom I preserve."
—Jeremiah 50:20
If we wish to understand briefly the meaning of these words, let us consider, by contrast, what is signified when the Lord says that he binds iniquities in a bag, gathers them into a bundle, and engraves them with an iron stylus and a point of diamond. Certainly, if these expressions mean that the Lord will punish them—as no one can doubt—then neither can I doubt that the preceding statements promise that God will not punish the offenses he forgives.
Here I must adjure the readers not to listen to my interpretations, but to give some place to the Word of God. What would Christ have accomplished for us if punishment were still required for our sins?
For when we say that he bore all our sins in his body upon the tree, we mean nothing other than that he received the whole punishment and vengeance due to our sins.
Isaiah expressed this more vividly when he said:
"The chastisement—or correction—of our peace was upon him."
—Isaiah 53:5
What is the chastisement of our peace except the punishment due to our sins, which we ourselves had to bear before we could be reconciled to God, had Christ not discharged it for us? Here we see clearly that Christ suffered the punishments of sins in order to deliver his people from them.
When Saint Paul speaks of the redemption accomplished by Christ, he commonly uses the Greek word apolytrosis, which does not signify merely redemption, as commonly understood, but the price and satisfaction which in French we call a ransom. For this reason, he says in one place:
"Christ gave himself as a ransom for us."
—1 Timothy 2:6
That is, he constituted himself our surety in order to deliver us fully from all the debts of our sins.
Above all, we possess a firm argument in the Mosaic Law's ordinance concerning the manner of expiating—that is, cleansing—sins. For
there the Lord does not teach several ways of making satisfaction, but appoints sacrifices alone as the entire compensation, although he carefully sets forth in order the sacrifices that were to be offered according to the different kinds of sin.
What does this mean? He does not command the sinner to make satisfaction by good works and merits in order to obtain pardon, but requires sacrifice as the whole expiation. By doing so, does he not testify that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice is appeased?
The sacrifices which the Israelites then offered were not valued as human works, but derived their worth from their truth—that is, from the one sacrifice of Christ.
As for the recompense God receives from us, the Prophet Hosea elegantly expresses it in a single statement:
"Lord, take away all our iniquities, and we will render to you the sacrifices of our lips."
—Hosea 14:2
There is the forgiveness of sins; and there is the satisfaction, which is nothing but thanksgiving.
But because they, for their part, also arm themselves with testimonies from Scripture, let us now consider the arguments they bring against us.
They say that David, after being rebuked by the Prophet Nathan for his adultery and murder, received forgiveness for his sin, yet was
afterward punished by the death of the son conceived in adultery. From this, they say, we are taught to redeem by satisfactions those penalties and punishments which we would otherwise have to endure after the forgiveness of our sins.
They also say that Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar:
"Redeem your sins by almsgiving."
—Daniel 4:27
And Solomon writes that a man's iniquities are forgiven because of righteousness and mercy. Likewise:
"Love covers a multitude of sins."
—Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8
And in Saint Luke our Lord says concerning the sinful woman:
"Her many sins have been forgiven because she loved much."
—Luke 7:47
How perversely they always interpret the works of God! If, on the contrary, they had carefully observed something that ought not to be disregarded—namely, that there are two kinds of divine judgment— they would have perceived something altogether different in David's correction than vengeance or punishment for sin.
It is highly profitable for us to understand the purpose of the chastisements God sends to correct our sins and how greatly they
differ from the punishments he sends upon the reprobate. Therefore, I do not think it superfluous to touch briefly upon this matter.
We shall signify all punishments generally by the word judgment, which we shall divide into two kinds. We shall call the first a judgment of vengeance and the second a judgment of correction.
By the judgment of vengeance, the Lord punishes his enemies in such a manner that he displays his wrath against them in order to ruin, destroy, and bring them to nothing. Therefore, it is properly called God's vengeance when the punishment he sends is joined with his wrath.
By the judgment of correction, he does not punish as one enraged, nor does he chastise in order to destroy or confound. Therefore, properly speaking, it ought not to be called vengeance, but admonition and correction.
The one belongs to a judge, the other to a father. For when a judge punishes an evildoer, he punishes his fault and crime. But when a father corrects his son, he does not aim to take vengeance upon his fault. Rather, he seeks to instruct him and make him more cautious for the future.
Chrysostom uses this comparison somewhat differently, though he arrives at the same point:
"The son is beaten, and so is the servant. But the servant is punished because he has sinned and receives what he deserves; the son is chastened by loving discipline."
Therefore, chastisement is administered to the son in order to amend him and restore him to the right way, while the servant receives what he has deserved because the master is indignant against him.
But to understand the whole matter more easily, we must make two distinctions. The first is that wherever punishment aims at vengeance, the wrath and curse of God are revealed, which he never directs against his believers. Correction, on the contrary, is a blessing from God and a testimony of his love, as Scripture says:
"Blessed is the man whom God corrects."
—Job 5:17
And again:
"My son, do not despise the Lord's correction, for the Lord corrects the one whom he loves."
—Proverbs 3:11–12; Hebrews 12:5–6
This difference is frequently noted. For all the afflictions the wicked endure in this world are to them like a gateway and entrance to hell, from which they perceive their everlasting condemnation as though from afar. So far are they from being amended or receiving any benefit from them that by these afflictions the Lord rather prepares them to receive the horrible punishment that must finally come upon them.
The Lord also chastises his servants, but not to deliver them over to death. Therefore, when struck by his rods, they recognize that this turns to their good and instruction. Thus, just as we see that
believers have always received such chastisements patiently and with a peaceful heart, so they have always regarded with horror those punishments in which God's wrath is displayed against them.
Jeremiah says:
"Correct me, Lord, but for my amendment and not in your wrath, lest I be brought to nothing. Pour out your fury upon the nations that do not know you and upon the kingdoms that do not call upon your name."
—Jeremiah 10:24–25
Likewise, David says:
"Lord, do not rebuke me in your fury or correct me in your wrath."
—Psalm 6:1; 38:1
Nor is this contradicted by the fact that the Lord is often said to be angry with his servants when he punishes and chastises their faults. Thus Isaiah says:
"I will praise you, Lord, for you were angry with me; but your fury has turned away, and you have comforted me."
—Isaiah 12:1
Likewise, Habakkuk says:
"When you are angry, remember mercy."
—Habakkuk 3:2
For by the same manner of speaking God is said to profane his inheritance, although we know that he will never truly profane it. Such language therefore does not refer to God's will or to the purpose he has in chastising his people, but to the intense pain experienced by all those toward whom he displays some rigor or severity.
Indeed, he sometimes not only pricks his servants with small goads but wounds them so deeply that they imagine themselves not far from hell. In doing this, he warns them that they have deserved his wrath, yet at the same time he assures them more fully of his clemency than of his severity.
For the covenant which he once made with Jesus Christ and his members remains as he promised and can never be broken:
"If his children forsake my Law and do not walk in my judgments, if they transgress my commandments and do not keep my ordinances, I will visit their iniquities with the rod and their sins with discipline. Nevertheless, I will not withdraw my mercy."
—Psalm 89:30–33
Indeed, to make us more certain of this, he says that the rods with which he will strike us will be the rods of men. By this expression, signifying that he will treat us gently and graciously, he shows that those whom he should strike with the full force of his hand could only be utterly overwhelmed and confounded.
The gentleness he exercises toward his people is likewise shown by the Prophet:
"I have refined you in the fire, but not as silver."
—Isaiah 48:10
For otherwise they would have been entirely consumed. That is, although the tribulations he sends upon his people are occasioned by their sins and faults, he nevertheless moderates them so that they do not destroy them beyond measure.
The second distinction is that when the wicked are struck by the scourges of God in this world, they already begin to endure the severity of his judgment. Although they will not be excused for failing to profit from these warnings of God's wrath, they are nevertheless not punished for their amendment, but only to make them understand that they have a Judge who will not allow them to escape without repaying them according to their deserts.
Believers, on the contrary, are struck not to make satisfaction for God's wrath or to pay what is owed to his judgment, but so that they may advance in repentance and return to the right way. We therefore see that such chastisements relate more to the future than to the past.
I prefer to express this in the words of Chrysostom rather than my own:
"The Lord punishes us for our faults, not to obtain some compensation for our sins, but to make us more cautious for
the future."
According to this distinction, when God deprived Saul of his kingdom, he punished him in vengeance; but when he took David's child from him, he corrected David for his amendment.
We must understand Saint Paul's words in this manner:
"When the Lord afflicts us, he corrects us so that we may not be condemned with the world."
—1 Corinthians 11:32
That is, the afflictions he sends us are not punishments intended to destroy us, but chastisements intended to instruct us.
Saint Augustine also agrees very well with us when he says that we must consider differently the chastisements by which our Lord visits his elect and the reprobate:
"For the former, after they have obtained grace, they are exercises; for the latter, without grace, they are condemnation."
He then cites the examples of David and others, saying that the Lord had no other purpose in chastising them than to exercise them in humility.
Nor should we infer from Isaiah's statement that the iniquity of the Jewish people was forgiven because they had received full correction from the Lord's hand that the forgiveness of our sins depends upon the chastisements we receive for them.
Rather, the meaning is as though God had said:
"I have punished and afflicted you enough, so that your heart has been entirely oppressed with sorrow and anguish. It is therefore time that, upon receiving the message of mercy, your hearts should be restored to joy."
Believers must arm themselves with this thought amid the bitterness of their afflictions:
"The time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God."
—1 Peter 4:17
What would believers do if they regarded the tribulation they endure as God's vengeance upon them? For whoever, when struck by God's hand, regards him as a judge punishing him cannot conceive of him otherwise than as angry and hostile. He cannot but detest God's rod as a curse and condemnation.
In short, whoever thinks that God is so disposed toward him that he still intends to punish him can never persuade himself that God loves him. We cannot profit from his discipline unless, while recognizing that he is displeased with our sins, we nevertheless regard him as gracious toward us and as bearing us an affection of love.
Nor does it make any difference whether the punishment is everlasting or temporal. For wars, famines, pestilences, and diseases are just as truly curses of God as the judgment of everlasting death
when our Lord sends them for the purpose of using them as instruments of his wrath and vengeance against the wicked.
Everyone can see, I think, the purpose of God's correction of David. It was to teach him how grievously murder and adultery displease God, since he displayed such wrath against them, and to warn him not to dare commit such an act again in the future. It was not a punishment by which David made some compensation to God for his fault.
We must judge in the same way concerning that other correction by which God afflicted the Jewish people with a terrible pestilence because of David's disobedience in numbering the people. For he forgave David the guilt of the offense. But because it was necessary, both as an example for every age and for David's humiliation, that such an act should not remain unpunished, our Lord chastised him severely with his rod.
The universal curse which our Lord pronounced upon the whole human race serves the same purpose. For when, even after obtaining grace, we still bear the miseries imposed upon our father Adam for his transgression, our Lord thereby warns us how greatly the transgression of his Law displeases him, so that, humbled and cast down by recognizing our poverty, we may aspire with more ardent desire toward true blessedness.
If anyone were to say that all the calamities we endure in this mortal life are compensations made to God for our faults, he would rightly be regarded as lacking understanding.
This, it seems to me, is what Saint Chrysostom intended when he wrote:
"If the reason God chastises us is to prevent us from continuing in evil or remaining hardened, then once he has brought us to repentance, punishment no longer has any place."
Therefore, according as he knows what is suitable to each person's nature, he treats some more severely and others more gently. Nevertheless, because there is none of us who does not wander and because we all need chastisement, this good Father, desiring our profit, visits us all without exception with his rods.
It is astonishing that they fix their attention upon the single example of David and are unmoved by so many examples demonstrating the free forgiveness of sins.
We read that the publican went down from the Temple justified, and no punishment followed. Saint Peter obtained pardon for his sin. As Saint Ambrose says:
"We read of his tears; we do not read of any satisfaction."
It was said to the paralytic:
"Rise; your sins are forgiven."
—Matthew 9:2
And no punishment was imposed upon him. All the absolutions mentioned in Scripture are described to us as free. The rule ought to
be drawn from this multitude of examples rather than from that one instance which contains something peculiar to itself.
In exhorting Nebuchadnezzar:
"Redeem your sins by righteousness and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,"
—Daniel 4:27
Daniel did not mean that righteousness and mercy were a propitiation before God or a redemption from punishments. For there has never been any other ransom than the blood of Christ. But in speaking of redeeming, Daniel refers it to men rather than to God, as though he had said: "O King, you have exercised an unjust and outrageous dominion. You have oppressed the weak, plundered the poor, and treated your people wickedly and unjustly. In return for the robberies, oppressions, and acts of violence you have committed against them, now render mercy and justice to them."
Likewise, when Solomon says that a multitude of sins is covered by love, he does not mean before God, but among men. For the whole statement reads:
"Hatred stirs up contentions, but love covers all iniquities."
—Proverbs 10:12
Here Solomon, according to his customary manner, compares by way of contrast the evils produced by hatred with the fruits of love. His meaning is this: those who hate one another bite, rebuke, and insult one another, turning everything into fault and reproach. Those who
love one another overlook, tolerate, and forgive many things between themselves—not because one approves the other's faults, but because he bears with them and seeks to remedy them by admonition rather than aggravating them by accusations.
Nor should we doubt that Saint Peter cited this passage in the same sense, unless we wish to charge him with corrupting and misapplying Scripture.
When Solomon says that sins are forgiven through mercy and kindness, he does not mean that they are compensated for before God so that, being satisfied and contented, he remits the punishments he would otherwise have sent. Rather, according to Scripture's common manner of speaking, he means that all who forsake their evil life and turn to God in holiness and good works will find him gracious to them. It is as though he said that God's wrath ceases and is appeased when we cease to do evil. This manner of speaking has been treated elsewhere.
As for the passage in Saint Luke, those who read our Lord's parable there with sound judgment will raise no controversy against us. The Pharisee thought within himself that our Lord did not know the sinful woman, since he had so readily allowed her to approach him. For he imagined that Christ would never have received her if he had known her to be the sinner she was. From this he inferred that Christ was not a prophet, since he could be so mistaken.
Our Lord, to show that she was no longer to be regarded as a sinner after her sins had been forgiven, presented this comparison:
"A creditor had two debtors. One owed him fifty francs and the other five hundred. He forgave the debt of both. Which of them ought to be more grateful to him?"
—Luke 7:41–42
The Pharisee answered:
"Certainly, the one whose greater debt was forgiven."
—Luke 7:43
Our Lord replied:
"From this understand that many sins have been forgiven this woman, since she has loved much."
—Luke 7:47
As is plainly evident, by these words he does not make the woman's love the cause of the forgiveness of her sins, but only its proof. For they are drawn from the comparison of the debtor whose five hundred francs had been forgiven. He does not say that they were forgiven because the debtor loved much, but that the debtor ought to love much because they had been forgiven.
The words must therefore be applied to the comparison in this manner: "You regard this woman as a sinner, but you ought to recognize her as otherwise, since her sins have been forgiven. The forgiveness of her sins ought to have been evident to you from her love, by which she gives thanks for the blessing bestowed upon her."
This is an argument drawn from subsequent effects, by which we demonstrate something from the signs that follow it. Finally, our Lord expressly testifies by what means this woman obtained pardon for her sin:
"Your faith has saved you."
—Luke 7:50
We therefore obtain forgiveness through faith; by love we give thanks and acknowledge the Lord's liberality.
I am not greatly surprised by the statements concerning satisfaction found in the writings of the ancient Fathers. To speak truthfully, I see that some of them—and nearly all whose works have come down to us—either erred at this point or spoke too harshly.
But I will not concede that they were so crude and ignorant as to have written what they said in the sense now imposed upon their words by these modern advocates of satisfaction. Chrysostom speaks in this manner in one passage:
"When mercy is sought, it is so that a man's sin may not be examined, that he may not be treated according to the rigor of justice, and that all punishment may cease. For where there is mercy, there is no longer Gehenna, examination, rigor, or punishment."
However they may attempt to evade these words, they can never be reconciled with the doctrine of the Scholastics.
Furthermore, in the book entitled De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, which is attributed to Saint Augustine, it is said in the fifty-fourth chapter:
"The satisfaction of repentance consists in removing the causes of sin and no longer yielding to its suggestions."
From this it is evident that in those days the opinion that past offenses must be compensated for by satisfactions was rejected. For all satisfaction is there directed toward guarding oneself for the future and abstaining from evil.
I shall not cite Chrysostom's statement that the Lord requires nothing else from us except that we confess our faults before him with tears, since such statements are frequently repeated by the ancient Fathers.
Saint Augustine does indeed, in one place, call works of mercy toward the poor remedies for obtaining pardon from God. But so that no one should be confused or entangled by this, he explains his meaning more fully elsewhere:
"The flesh of Christ is the true and only sacrifice for sins— not only for those forgiven us in baptism, but also for those which afterward arise from the infirmity of the flesh, for which the Church prays daily, 'Forgive us our debts.' Indeed, they are forgiven through this one sacrifice."
Most often, however, the ancient Fathers used the word satisfaction not for a compensation rendered to God, but for a public declaration by which those who had been disciplined through excommunication,
when they came to be restored to the communion of the Church, gave the company of believers evidence of their repentance.
For certain fasts and other observances were appointed for them, by which they demonstrated that they truly and sincerely repented of their former life—or rather, by which they erased the memory of their evil conduct. Thus they were said to make satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church.
From this ancient custom have descended the confessions and satisfactions now in use. They are truly a serpentine brood which has so completely suffocated everything that was good in that ancient practice that not even its shadow remains.
I know well that the ancient Fathers sometimes speak rather crudely, and, as I said a little earlier, I do not wish to deny that they may occasionally have erred. But their books, which were only marked by a few small stains, are entirely defiled when handled by these swine.
And if the matter is to be decided by the authority of the ancient Fathers, what ancient Fathers do they set before us? The greater part of the statements with which Peter Lombard, their captain, filled his book were drawn from the fantasies of I know not what foolish monks, circulated under the names of Saint Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom.
In the present matter, for example, he borrows nearly everything he says from a book entitled On Repentance. This book, confusedly stitched together by some ignorant person from good and bad authors, is attributed to Saint Augustine, though it is such a work
that a moderately learned man would not condescend to acknowledge it as his own.
Likewise, let them no longer trouble our heads with their purgatory, which has been cut down, demolished, and uprooted by this axe. For I do not approve the opinion of those who think we ought to pass over this point in silence and refrain from mentioning purgatory because, as they say, it gives rise to great controversies and produces little edification.
Certainly, I also would advise leaving such nonsense behind if it did not carry such serious consequences with it. But since purgatory is constructed from many blasphemies, is daily supported by still greater ones, and gives rise to great scandals, it must not be passed over in silence.
Perhaps it might have been overlooked for a time that it was invented without the Word of God through foolish and audacious rashness; that it was received on the authority of I know not what revelations fabricated by Satan's cunning; and that certain passages of Scripture were wickedly corrupted to confirm it.
Nevertheless, our Lord does not regard it as a light offense when human audacity rashly intrudes into the secrets of his judgments. He has strictly forbidden men to seek truth from the dead while despising his voice, nor does he permit his Word to be treated so irreverently.
Yet let us grant that all these things could be tolerated for a time as though they were of little importance. But when the cleansing of sins
is sought anywhere other than in Christ, and satisfaction is transferred elsewhere than to him, it is dangerous to remain silent.
We must therefore cry aloud that purgatory is a pernicious fiction of Satan which casts intolerable reproach upon the mercy of God, makes the cross of Christ of no effect, and dissipates and overthrows our faith.
For what is their purgatory except a punishment suffered by the souls of the departed in satisfaction for their sins? Thus, if the notion of satisfaction is removed, their purgatory immediately collapses.
Now, if what we have previously argued makes it more than evident that the blood of Christ is the only cleansing, offering, and satisfaction for the sins of believers, what remains except that purgatory is a pure and horrible blasphemy against Jesus Christ?
I pass over the many falsehoods and sacrileges by which it is daily maintained and defended, the scandals it produces in religion, and the innumerable other evils that have flowed from this source of impiety.
Nevertheless, we must tear from their hands those testimonies of Scripture which they customarily and falsely claim for themselves. They say:
"When the Lord declares that the sin against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come, he indicates that certain sins will be forgiven in the world to come."
—Matthew 12:32
In reply, I ask whether it is not evident that the Lord is speaking there of the guilt of sin. If so, it contributes nothing to their purgatory, for they say that punishment is suffered there for sins whose guilt was forgiven in this mortal life.
Nevertheless, to stop their mouths completely, I shall give them an even clearer answer. Because the Lord intended to remove every hope of obtaining pardon for so execrable a crime, he was not content merely to say that it would never be forgiven. For greater emphasis, he used this division, placing on one side the judgment which each person's conscience feels in the present life, and on the other the final judgment that will be publicly revealed on the day of resurrection.
It is as though he had said: "Beware of fighting against God with deliberate malice, for such rebellion brings everlasting death. Whoever deliberately endeavors to extinguish the light of the Spirit presented to him will obtain pardon neither in this life, which is appointed for sinners to be converted, nor on the final day, when God's angels will separate the lambs from the goats and cleanse the Kingdom of God from every stumbling block."
They also bring forward this parable from Saint Matthew:
"Come to terms with your adversary, lest he bring you before the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer cast you into prison, from which you will not depart until you have paid the last farthing."
—Matthew 5:25–26
I answer that if in this passage the judge signifies God, the adversary the Devil, the officer an angel, and the prison purgatory, then I concede that they have won.
But if it is evident that Christ intended to show how many dangers those expose themselves to who would rather pursue their quarrels and lawsuits to the bitter end than settle them amicably, thereby warning us always to seek peace with everyone, where will purgatory be found here? In short, let the passage be examined and understood in its plain meaning, and nothing they claim will be found in it.
They also draw a proof from Saint Paul's words:
"Every knee shall bow before Christ, of those in heaven, those on earth, and those under the earth."
—Philippians 2:10
They take it as settled that those under the earth cannot mean those who are in everlasting death. Therefore, they conclude that these must be the souls in purgatory.
Their argument would not be bad if by the bending of the knee the Apostle meant the true worship believers render to God. But since he teaches simply that Jesus Christ has received from the Father sovereign dominion over every creature, what is wrong with understanding those under the earth as the devils? They will certainly appear before the Lord's throne and acknowledge their Judge with terror and trembling.
Saint Paul himself explains this prophecy in another place:
"We shall all appear before Christ's judgment seat. For the Lord says that every knee shall bow before him."
—Romans 14:10–11
They will reply that the words in Revelation cannot be explained in this manner:
"I heard every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea saying, 'Praise, honor, glory, and power forever and ever to him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb.'"
—Revelation 5:13
I readily grant them this. But what creatures do they suppose are spoken of here, since even those without soul or understanding are included? Nothing else is signified except that every part of the universe, from the summit of heaven to the center of the earth, each in its own place, magnifies the glory of its Creator.
I shall give no answer to what they produce from the history of the Maccabees, lest I appear to acknowledge that book as canonical.
But they claim to possess an invincible fortress in Saint Paul when he says:
"If anyone, in building upon this foundation, lays gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble, each man's work will be revealed by the day of the Lord, because it will
be disclosed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; yet he himself will be saved, though through fire."
—1 Corinthians 3:12–15
"What fire," they ask, "could Saint Paul mean except purgatory, by which our stains are washed away so that we may enter the Kingdom of God purified?"
I answer that many even among the ancient Fathers interpreted it differently, understanding fire as the cross and tribulation by which the Lord tests his people in order to cleanse them from all their uncleanness. This is certainly far more plausible than imagining a purgatory.
Nevertheless, I do not accept this interpretation because I believe I have one that is more certain and clear. First, we see that the Apostle uses a metaphor or comparison, calling doctrines invented in the human mind hay, wood, and stubble. The reason for this comparison is evident: just as wood is consumed as soon as it is brought near the fire, so such human doctrines cannot endure when they are brought under examination. It is also evident that this examination is made by the Holy Spirit.
Thus, to carry the comparison through and make each part correspond to the other, he calls the examination of the Holy Spirit fire. For just as gold and silver are more surely tested the nearer they are brought to the fire, so that their purity may be known, so the truth of God, the more diligently it is considered by spiritual examination, is thereby more firmly confirmed in its authority. Just
as wood, stubble, and hay, when cast into the fire, immediately catch flame and are reduced to ashes, so all human inventions that are not established upon the Word of God cannot endure the examination of the Spirit without being destroyed and brought to nothing.
In short, if invented doctrines are compared to wood, stubble, and hay because, like wood, stubble, and hay, they are burned by fire and reduced to nothing; and if they are destroyed and scattered only by the Spirit of God, it follows that the Spirit is the fire by which they are tested. Saint Paul calls this testing the Day of the Lord, according to the usage of Scripture, which speaks in this way whenever the Lord in any manner manifests his presence to men. Now his face shines upon us chiefly when his truth is made clear to us.
We have already proved that fire in Saint Paul signifies nothing other than the examination of the Holy Spirit. It remains to understand how those who suffer the loss of their work will be saved through this fire. This will not be difficult if we consider the kind of men of whom he is speaking. For he refers to those who, in seeking to build up the Church, retain the right foundation but add to it material of a different kind that does not correspond to it. That is, they do not turn aside from the principal and necessary articles of the faith, yet they err in certain matters by mingling human dreams with the truth of God.
Such men, therefore, must suffer the loss of their work—that is, whatever they have added of their own to the Word of God must perish and be trampled underfoot. Their persons, meanwhile, will be saved—not because their error and ignorance are approved by God,
but because our Lord, by the grace of his Spirit, withdraws and delivers them from these things.
Therefore, all those who have defiled the sacred purity of Scripture with this filth and ordure of purgatory must allow their work to perish.
CHAPTER SIX
Of Justification by Faith and the Merits of Works
It seems to me that I have already explained with sufficient care how only one refuge of salvation remains for men—namely, faith—since they are all condemned by the Law. I also believe that I have sufficiently treated what faith is, what graces of God it communicates to man, and what fruits it produces in him. The substance of what has been said is this: by faith we receive and possess Jesus Christ as he is presented to us by the goodness of God; and by participating in him, we receive a twofold grace. The first is that, being reconciled to God through his innocence, instead of having a judge in heaven to condemn us, we have a most merciful Father. The second is that we are sanctified by his Spirit, so that we may pursue holiness and innocence of life.
Concerning regeneration, which is the second grace, I have said as much as seemed expedient. Justification was treated more briefly, because it was first necessary to understand that faith is neither idle nor barren of good works, although by it we obtain free righteousness through the mercy of God. It was also necessary to understand the nature of the good works of the saints, upon which part of the question now before us depends.
We must therefore consider justification by faith more fully. And in doing so, we must remember that this is the principal article of the Christian religion, so that everyone may devote greater care and diligence to reaching a settled understanding of it. For just as we
have no foundation upon which to establish our salvation unless we know God's will toward us, so we have no foundation upon which to build a life of godliness and the fear of God. Yet the necessity of rightly understanding this subject will become clearer as the doctrine itself is explained.
Therefore, lest we stumble at the very first step—as would happen if we began debating a matter whose meaning had not been established —we must first explain what is meant by the expressions to be justified before God and to be justified by faith or by works.
A person is said to be justified before God when he is accounted righteous before God's judgment and is accepted on account of his righteousness. For as iniquity is abominable to God, so a sinner cannot find favor before his face. Wherever sin is found, therefore, there the wrath and vengeance of God are revealed. Thus, the person who is justified is not regarded as a sinner but as righteous, and for that reason he is able to stand before God's judgment seat, where all sinners stumble and are confounded.
If a man falsely accused is examined by a judge, acquitted, and declared innocent, we say that he has been justified in court. In the same way, we say that a man is justified before God when, being separated from the number of sinners, he has God as the witness and approver of his righteousness.
Accordingly, we shall say that a man is justified before God by his works when his life possesses such purity and holiness that it deserves the title of righteousness before God, or when, by the integrity of his works, he is able to answer and satisfy the judgment of God. By contrast, a man is said to be justified by faith when, being
excluded from the righteousness of works, he apprehends by faith the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and, clothed with that righteousness, appears before the face of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.
Nevertheless, because most men imagine a righteousness compounded of faith and works, before proceeding further we must also show that the righteousness of faith differs so completely from the righteousness of works that, if the one is established, the other is overthrown. The Apostle says:
"I have counted all things as dung, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through faith in Jesus Christ—the righteousness which is from God by faith."
—Philippians 3:8–9
Here we see that he contrasts them as opposing things and shows that whoever wishes to obtain the righteousness of Christ must abandon his own. Therefore, he says elsewhere that this was the cause of the ruin of the Jews:
"Seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God."
—Romans 10:3
If, by establishing our own righteousness, we reject the righteousness of God, then to obtain the latter the former must be entirely abolished. This is also what he means when he says that our boasting
is excluded, not by the Law, but by faith. From this it follows that so long as the least drop of righteousness remains to us in our works, we retain some ground for boasting. Therefore, if faith excludes all boasting, the righteousness of faith cannot in any way coexist with the righteousness of works.
It was the theologians of the Sorbonne who filled the world with this false opinion, which is commonly held; but they err in two ways. First, they call faith a certainty of expecting a reward from God. Second, by the word grace they do not mean the gift of free righteousness that we receive, but the aid of the Holy Spirit for living well and holily. They read in the Apostle:
"He who comes to God must believe that he is a rewarder of those who seek him."
—Hebrews 11:6
But they do not consider the manner in which he is to be sought, which we shall soon explain.
That they are mistaken concerning the word grace is evident from their books. For their Master of the Sentences explains the righteousness that we have through Christ in two ways. First, he says that the death of Christ justifies us when it produces love in our hearts, by which we are made righteous. Second, it justifies us insofar as sin is extinguished through it—sin under whose power the devil held us captive—so that he can no longer overcome us.
We see that he considers the grace of God only insofar as we are directed to good works by the power of the Holy Spirit. He intended
to follow the opinion of Saint Augustine, but he follows it from a great distance and even strays far from a faithful imitation. For what that holy man expressed clearly, he obscures; and what was only slightly blemished in him, he corrupts entirely. The schools of the Sorbonne have continually gone from bad to worse, until at last they have fallen into the error of Pelagius.
Yet even Saint Augustine's position ought not to be accepted without qualification. For although he very properly strips man of all praise for righteousness and attributes it entirely to God, he nevertheless refers grace to the sanctification by which we are regenerated to newness of life. But when Scripture speaks of the righteousness of faith, it leads us elsewhere: it teaches us to turn our eyes away from our works and to look only to the mercy of God and the perfect holiness of Christ.
For Scripture sets before us this order of justification: at the outset, God receives the sinner out of his own pure and free goodness, seeing nothing in him that might move him to mercy except his misery, since he beholds him entirely destitute and empty of good works. He therefore takes from himself alone the reason for doing him good. He then touches the sinner with a sense of his goodness, so that, distrusting everything he possesses, he may rest the whole of his salvation upon the mercy God shows him.
This is the conviction of faith by which a man enters into possession of his salvation: through the doctrine of the Gospel, he knows that he has been reconciled to God because, having obtained forgiveness of his sins through the righteousness of Christ, he is justified. And although he is regenerated by the Spirit of God, he does not rest
upon the good works he performs, but is assured that his perpetual righteousness consists in the righteousness of Christ.
When all these things have been examined individually, our doctrine concerning this subject will be easily explained. They may be better arranged if we treat them in a different order from that in which we have proposed them; but this matters little, provided they are set forth in such a way that the whole subject is rightly understood.
Here we must remember the correspondence that we established above between faith and the Gospel. For we say that faith justifies because it receives the righteousness offered in the Gospel. Now, if righteousness is offered to us in the Gospel, all consideration of works is thereby excluded. Saint Paul shows this frequently, but especially in two passages. In the Epistle to the Romans, comparing the Law with the Gospel, he says:
"The righteousness which is of the Law is that whoever does the commandments of God shall live by them. But the righteousness of faith proclaims salvation to the one who believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth Jesus Christ, and that the Father has raised him from the dead."
—Romans 10:5, 9–10
Do we not see that he establishes this difference between the Law and the Gospel: the Law assigns righteousness to works, whereas the Gospel gives it freely, without regard to works? This is certainly a notable passage, capable of delivering us from many difficulties. For it is no small matter to understand that the righteousness given to us in the Gospel is free from the conditions of the Law.
This is why he so often contrasts the Law and the promise as opposing things:
"If the inheritance comes by the Law, it no longer comes by the promise."
—Galatians 3:18
There are other similar statements in the same chapter. It is certain that the Law also has its promises. Therefore, the promises of the Gospel must possess something distinctive and different, unless we wish to say that the comparison is meaningless. And what can this difference be except that the Gospel promises are free and rest solely upon the mercy of God, whereas the promises of the Law depend upon the condition of works?
The second passage is this:
"That no one is justified before God by the Law is evident, for the righteous shall live by faith. But the Law is not of faith, for it says: The one who does the things commanded shall live by them."
—Galatians 3:11–12
How could this argument stand unless it were first established that works are not taken into account? The Law, he says, differs from faith. In what respect? He adds that it is because the Law requires works in order to justify a man. It follows, therefore, that works are not required when a man is to be justified by faith. From this contrast it is evident that whoever is justified by faith is justified
without any merit from his works—indeed, entirely apart from all merit.
For faith receives the righteousness presented by the Gospel; and the Gospel is said to differ from the Law in this respect: it does not bind righteousness to works, but places it solely in the mercy of God. Saint Paul uses a similar argument in the Epistle to the Romans when he says that Abraham has no ground for boasting, since faith was imputed to him for righteousness. He immediately adds the reason: the righteousness of faith has its place where there are no works to which any reward is due.
"To the one who works, the reward is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
—Romans 4:4–5
What follows tends toward the same end: we obtain the heavenly inheritance by faith so that we may understand that it comes to us by grace. He concludes that the heavenly inheritance is free because we receive it by faith. Why is this, except that faith, having no support in works, rests entirely upon the mercy of God?
The readers may now judge how fairly the Sophists act when they cavil at our doctrine that man is justified by faith alone. They dare not deny that man is justified by faith; but because the word alone is not expressly stated, they reproach us for adding it ourselves. If that is so, how will they answer Saint Paul's words, where he argues that righteousness cannot be by faith unless it is free? How can that
which is free agree with works? And by what slander will they escape his statement elsewhere that the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel? If it is revealed there, it is not revealed by halves or in part, but fully and perfectly. It follows, therefore, that the Law is excluded from it.
Indeed, their evasion is not merely false but utterly ridiculous when they say that we add something of our own by speaking of faith alone. For does not the one who removes from works all power to justify attribute that power entirely to faith? What else do these expressions of Saint Paul mean—that righteousness is given to us apart from the Law, and that man is freely justified without the aid of his works?
They have a very subtle escape here: they say that ceremonial works are excluded, but not moral works. This is utterly foolish, though they derive it from Origen and certain other ancient writers. They profit so greatly from their endless barking in the schools that they do not even know the first rudiments of logic. Do they imagine that the Apostle is out of his senses when he brings forward these testimonies to establish his teaching?
"The one who does these things shall live by them."
—Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12
And again:
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things written here."
—Galatians 3:10
Unless they are altogether mad, they will not say that eternal life is promised to those who observe the ceremonies, or that only those who transgress the ceremonies are cursed. If these passages must be understood of the moral Law, there can be no doubt that moral works are excluded from the power to justify.
The arguments Saint Paul employs tend toward the same conclusion. For example:
"If the knowledge of sin comes through the Law, righteousness does not come through it."
—Romans 3:20
The Law produces the wrath of God; therefore, it does not bring us salvation. Since the Law cannot give assurance to consciences, it cannot give righteousness. And since faith is imputed for righteousness, righteousness is not given to us as the wages of works, but as the free gift of God.
Again, if we are justified by faith, all boasting is cast down. Again:
"If the Law could give life, righteousness would indeed come through the Law. But God has shut up all things under sin, so that the promised salvation might be given to those who believe."
—Galatians 3:21–22
Let them dare to allege that this is said of ceremonies and not of moral works; even little children would mock their impudence. Let this therefore remain settled: when the power to justify is taken away from the Law, the whole Law must be understood.
If anyone wonders why the Apostle chose to add the words of the Law, rather than speaking simply of works, we have the answer at hand. For works derive their worth, not so much from their own dignity as from their being approved by God. Who would dare to boast of any righteousness before God unless it were accepted by him? And who would dare to demand any reward from him unless he had promised it? It is therefore owing to God's generosity that works are honored with the title of righteousness and receive a reward, if indeed they can in any way be worthy of either. The whole value of works rests upon this: through them man seeks to render obedience to God.
Therefore, when the Apostle seeks elsewhere to prove that Abraham could not be justified by his works, he argues that the Law was published about four hundred years after the covenant of grace had been given to him. The ignorant might laugh at this argument, thinking that good works could certainly have existed before the Law was published. But because Saint Paul knew well that works possess no dignity except insofar as they are accepted by God, he takes it as evident that they could not justify before the promises of the Law had been given.
We thus see why, when he intends to deprive works of the power to justify, he expressly speaks of works of the Law: namely, because only works authorized by the Law could even come into question. Yet
he sometimes excludes all works simply and without qualification. For example, he says that David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. By all their cavils, therefore, they cannot prevent us from understanding this exclusion in its full and universal sense.
It is also in vain that they seek another subtle evasion, saying that we are justified by faith alone, but by a faith that works through love, intending thereby to signify that righteousness rests upon love. We readily confess with Saint Paul that no faith justifies except that which is joined with love. Yet faith does not derive its power to justify from love. Indeed, it justifies for no other reason than that it brings us into participation in the righteousness of Christ.
Otherwise, the Apostle's argument, which he presses so forcefully, would be overthrown:
"To the one who works, the reward is not credited according to grace, but according to debt. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness."
—Romans 4:4–5
Could he have spoken more clearly? He declares that there is no righteousness of faith except where there are no works to which any reward is due, and that faith is imputed as righteousness only when righteousness is given to us by unmerited grace.
Let us now consider whether what was stated in our definition is true: that the righteousness of faith is nothing other than
reconciliation with God, which consists in the forgiveness of sins. We must always return to this principle: the wrath of God is prepared for all who persist in being sinners. Isaiah expressed this well when he said:
"The hand of God is not shortened, that he cannot save us; nor is his ear stopped, that he cannot hear us. But our iniquities have made a separation between him and us, and our sins have turned his face away from us, so that he will not hear us."
—Isaiah 59:1–2
We hear that sin creates a division between God and man and turns the face of God away from the sinner. Indeed, it cannot be otherwise, for it is wholly incompatible with his righteousness to have fellowship with sin. For this reason, Saint Paul says that man is an enemy of God until he is restored to his favor through Christ. Therefore, the one whom God receives into his love is said to be justified, because God cannot receive anyone into fellowship with himself without making him righteous who was formerly a sinner.
We add that this is accomplished through the forgiveness of sins. For if those reconciled to God are considered according to their works, they will still be found to be sinners; yet they must be altogether pure and free from sin.
It is therefore evident that those whom God receives into favor are made righteous in no other way than by being purified, insofar as their stains are blotted out by the forgiveness God grants them. Thus,
such righteousness may be called in a single word the forgiveness of sins.
Both points are very clearly declared in these words of Saint Paul:
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to men, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."
—2 Corinthians 5:19
He then adds the substance of his embassy:
"He who was pure and free from sin was made sin for us"— that is, the sacrifice upon which all our sins were transferred—"so that in him we might be righteous before God."
—2 Corinthians 5:21
In this passage he uses righteousness and reconciliation interchangeably, so that we understand the one to be contained within the other. The manner of obtaining this righteousness is also explained when he says that it consists in God's not imputing our sins to us.
Likewise, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves by the testimony of David that righteousness is imputed to man apart from works:
"Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered, and to whom the Lord does not impute their faults."
—Romans 4:6–8
There is no doubt that David signifies righteousness by the word blessedness. Since he affirms that it consists in the forgiveness of sins, there is no need for us to define it otherwise. Therefore, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, places the knowledge of salvation in the forgiveness of sins. Following the same rule, Saint Paul concludes his sermon to the Antiochians concerning the substance of their salvation in this manner:
"Through Jesus Christ the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and from all the things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses, everyone who believes in him is justified."
—Acts 13:38–39
He so closely joins righteousness with the forgiveness of sins that he shows them to be the same thing. He therefore rightly argues throughout that the righteousness we obtain by the goodness of God is free.
From this it also follows that we are justified before God solely by the righteousness of Christ. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself, but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation. This is a matter worthy of careful attention. For it causes the notion to vanish that man is justified by faith insofar as through faith he receives the Spirit of God, by whom he is made righteous.
That notion is entirely contrary to the doctrine established above, for there is no doubt that the man who must seek righteousness outside himself is destitute of righteousness of his own. The Apostle clearly shows this when he says:
"He who was innocent bore our transgressions, being presented as a sacrifice for us, so that in him we might be righteous before God."
—2 Corinthians 5:21
We see that he places our righteousness in Christ, not in us, and that this righteousness belongs to us by no other right than that we are partakers of Christ. For in possessing him, we possess with him all his riches.
Nor does anything oppose this in what he says elsewhere:
"Sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, so that the righteousness of God might be fulfilled in us."
—Romans 8:3–4
Here he signifies no other fulfillment than that which we obtain by imputation. For the Lord Jesus communicates his righteousness to us in such a manner that, by an ineffable power, it is transferred to us insofar as the judgment of God is concerned.
That he intended nothing else is evident from the statement he had made shortly before:
"As by the disobedience of one we were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of one we are justified."
—Romans 5:19
What else is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ but to affirm that we are righteous because Christ's obedience is reckoned to us and accepted as payment, as though it were our own?
Therefore, it seems to me that Saint Ambrose found an excellent illustration of this righteousness in the blessing of Jacob. Jacob had not merited the birthright in himself, but, concealed under the person of his brother and clothed in his garment, which gave off a pleasing fragrance, he gained access to his father and received the blessing in the person of another. In the same way, we must be hidden beneath the garment of Christ, our firstborn brother, in order to receive the testimony of righteousness before the face of our heavenly Father.
This is certainly the pure truth. For to appear safely before God, we must bear the sweetness of Christ's fragrance, and our faults must be buried beneath his perfection.
Although clear testimonies show all these things to be entirely true, their necessity cannot be properly perceived until we have set plainly before our eyes what must serve as the foundation of this whole dispute.
First, let us remember that we are not discussing how a man may appear righteous before the tribunal of some earthly judge, but before the heavenly throne of God. We must not, therefore, measure
by our own standard the integrity required to satisfy the judgment of God. Yet it is astonishing with what rashness and presumption men commonly proceed in this matter. Indeed, it is evident that none speak more boldly or boastfully about the righteousness of works than those who are openly wicked or inwardly bursting with vices and sinful desires.
This happens because they give no thought to the righteousness of God. If they possessed even the slightest sense of it, they would never mock it in this manner. Yet it is despised and mocked beyond measure whenever it is not acknowledged to be so perfect that nothing is acceptable to it except what is entirely whole, pure from every stain, and faultless in its perfection. Such righteousness has never been found in any living man, nor will it ever be.
It is easy for anyone to chatter in some corner of a school about the worth that works possess for justifying man. But when we come before the face of God, all such rubbish must be left behind, for there the matter is treated in earnest, not by frivolous disputations. It is there that we must direct our understanding if we wish profitably to inquire into true righteousness. There, I say, we must consider how we shall answer that heavenly Judge when he summons us to give an account.
We must therefore establish him upon his throne—not as our understanding imagines him, but as he is depicted for us in Scripture: he whose brightness obscures the stars; by whose power the mountains melt like snow beneath the sun; at whose wrath the earth is shaken; by whose wisdom the wise are caught in their craftiness; whose purity is so great that, in comparison with it, all
things are defiled and polluted; whose righteousness even the angels cannot endure; who does not acquit the wicked; and whose vengeance, once kindled, penetrates to the deepest parts of the earth.
Let him, then, sit in judgment to examine the works of men. Who will dare approach his throne without trembling? The Prophet speaks of him in this manner:
"Who shall dwell with a fire that consumes all things, or with a flame that cannot be extinguished? He who practices righteousness and truth, and who is pure and upright throughout his life."
—Isaiah 33:14–15
Whoever answers this description, let him come forward.
But this answer ensures that no one would dare present himself. For, on the other hand, this dreadful declaration ought to make us tremble:
"If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?"
—Psalm 130:3
Certainly, the whole world would immediately perish. For it is written elsewhere:
"Can man be justified when compared with his God, or be found purer than his Creator? Behold, those who serve him are not faultless, and he finds fault even with his angels.
How much more shall those who dwell in houses of clay and are confined within earthly tabernacles be cast down?"
—Job 4:17–19
And again:
"Behold, among his saints there is none who is pure, and the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and worthless is man, who drinks iniquity like water?"
—Job 15:15–16
It is there, then, that we must direct our eyes, so that we may learn to tremble rather than conceive a vain confidence. For while each of us limits himself to comparisons with other men, it is easy to imagine that we possess something others ought not to despise. But as soon as we raise our eyes to God, this confidence is instantly destroyed and brought to nothing.
Indeed, the same thing happens to our souls before God as happens to our bodies beneath the heavens. So long as a man limits himself to contemplating the things around him, he supposes his sight to be good and strong. But if he raises his eyes toward the sun, he is so dazzled by its brightness that this sight makes him feel the weakness of his vision more acutely than he previously perceived its strength in looking upon lesser things.
Let us not, therefore, deceive ourselves with vain confidence. Even if we are equal or superior to every other man, this is nothing before
God, to whom our examination of ourselves must be referred. If our presumption cannot be subdued by such admonitions, he will answer us as he answered the Pharisees:
"You are those who justify yourselves before men, but what is highly esteemed among men is abominable before God."
—Luke 16:15
Go, then, and boast proudly among men of your righteousness, while God holds it in abomination in heaven.