Sixth, we cannot do as much as we owe.
Sixth, we cannot do as much as we owe.
§ 90. We are obligated to God in such a way that we can never do as much as we owe; therefore we can never pay more [supererogamus]. The antecedent is clear, for whatever good thing we have, we have from Him. Therefore all that is ours is owed to Him. Even if we give up our life for God a thousand times, we shall still never render to Him anything equal [to what we owe].
Bellarmine counters: “God could have demanded of us whatever we are capable of doing, but He did not want to do that, for He imposed upon us a light yoke and an easy burden [Matt. 11:30]. If we consider the benefits that God has conferred upon us, we cannot do more than we ought to do. In fact, we cannot do as much as we should. But if we consider the Law that God has imposed upon us, we can do more than we are actually bound to do.”
We respond. Bellarmine’s counterargument depends on the hypothesis that the Decalogue does not require a greater and more perfect obedience than the kind which our corrupt nature can show in this life. Hence it is thought that God, by right of His lordship, could indeed have obligated us to the impossible, but that of His goodness He proposed Commandments which are necessary to earn salvation under such restraint and moderation that it is beyond the power of no one, however weak, so that all who are willing to exert themselves can attain eternal life through the Commandments. But it is thought that if some are found more ready, who wish to go beyond those bounds to which the observance of the Law necessary for salvation is limited, to such the counsels of perfection are prescribed and special prerogatives in eternal life are decreed. But this figment of Bellarmine’s imagination conflicts with the end for which God established the solemn repetition of His Law after the fall, as we have shown in its own place [On the Law of God (Commonplace XV), §§ 25–26, 183].
Lawyers teach us that what is natural is unchangeable. But now, the obligation which proceeds from the benefits that God has bestowed on us belongs to the natural law. Consequently, it is unchangeable. And so the moral Law does not remove or diminish that obligation, since it is the same as the law of nature. Instead, it declares that obligation and makes it clear.
§ 91. The remaining arguments that Bellarmine attributes to us are of less importance; yet in their explanation he does not satisfy himself, much less the truth. He cites Ps. 119:32: “When You enlarged my heart, I ran in the way of Your Commandments”; and he adds (col. 477): “Surely he who runs when he is obligated only to walk does more than he has been commanded.” Yet did David fulfill the counsels of perfection, whose publication they assign to the New Testament and thus call them “evangelical counsels”?
He admits that “we are never or rarely free of venial sins in this life, yet these do not hinder us from being righteous and from being able to do works of supererogation” (col. 479). But if venial sins are sins, they are lawlessness and transgression of the Law [1 John 3:4]. If we transgress the Law every day, how do we not only fulfill the Law perfectly but also perform works of supererogation? Those sins, whose remission we seek daily in accord with Christ’s command, are and are called “debts” [Matt. 6:12]. If we daily contract debts, how can we do more than we owe when we never do as much as we owe? He asserts (col. 479) that “mere negligence is reproved and cursed by God’s Law because it is serious and stems from deceit.” But the general judgment of the Law is: “Cursed is he who does not continue in all the things that are written in the Book of the Law” [Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10]. Christ’s explanation is clear: “Not a jot or a tittle will pass away until all things are accomplished” [Matt. 5:18]. Bellarmine denies that the Law requires all our strength (col. 481), though the voice of the Law clearly commands us to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength [Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 30:6; Matt. 22:37]. And, lest any of his absurdities be omitted, he claims (col. 482) that “God is loved above all things by him who does not love Him as ardently as perhaps he could or who does not do all things for Him that he could.” He says this despite the fact that God’s Law obviously requires the highest degree of love.