Section X: The Impossibility of Fulfilling the Moral Law.

Section X: The Impossibility of Fulfilling the Moral Law.

SECTION X: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FULFILLING THE MORAL LAW

Whether God’s Law can be fulfilled perfectly.

§ 181. Now that we have thoroughly explained the Decalogue, it will become readily apparent whether we can in this life render the perfect obedience that God requires of us in His Law, be it by the powers of nature or of grace, that is, either before or after regeneration. On this point we have a serious opposition to the Papists, for they are convinced that perfectly fulfilling the Law is not beyond a man’s powers, especially if he is reborn. We claim, on the contrary, that even though those who have not yet been reborn can indeed render outward good conduct [disciplina]—Scripture calls this the “righteousness of the flesh” (Heb. 9:10)—they cannot even begin to have an inner obedience of the heart apart from faith and the Holy Spirit, not to mention rendering or fulfilling such inner obedience. Furthermore, the outward orderly conduct of the unreborn does not please God and is not truly good work.

As regards the reborn, we assert that the Law is fulfilled by them in two ways. First, by faith and imputation, “for God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, sending His own Son, and concerning sin He condemned sin that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:3–4). “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes” [Rom. 10:4]. Second, by an inchoate or new obedience that has come from faith; for to those who believe there is imputed the perfect obedience of the Law which Christ performed, not that they may live freely according to the flesh but that they may walk in the commandments of God. This new obedience of the reborn does not only consist of outward works but also involves inner obedience, seeing as it mortifies the inner desires of the heart and the lusts of the flesh as new impulses begin [to arise] which are in harmony with the Law of God. Nevertheless this is still far from being the perfect fulfillment of the Law that God requires. This we prove by the following arguments.

Arguments in favor of the negative side: First, Scripture clearly contradicts this.

§ 182. (I) In clear and plain language Scripture declares that God’s Law requires such perfect obedience, complete in every respect, that completely fulfilling it is impossible for us in this life. John 7:19: “Moses gave you the Law, yet none of you does it.” Acts 7:53: “You received the Law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.” Acts 13:38–39: “Through Christ forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and freedom from everything from which you could not be freed by the Law of Moses.” Acts 15:10: “Why do you test God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Rom. 8:3: “For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do, by sending His Son.” Rom. 8:7: “For the mind that is set on the flesh does not submit to the Law of God; indeed, it cannot.” Gal. 3:21: “A law has not been given which can make a person alive.”

** Socinus (against the statement of Rom. 8[:3], “what the Law could not do”) raises the objection (De servator., part 2, ch. 23, f. 194): “For ‘the Law to be weakened through the flesh’ is the same thing as is said elsewhere, that man is freed from the slavery of sin.” We respond. The context shows that it means something else, namely, that because the Law is impossible for carnal man, it cannot provide salvation. In the preceding verses, he places the law of the Spirit of life in Christ in opposition to the law of sin and death, saying that “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has freed him from the Law” [v. 2], that is, that in Christ do we find the fulfillment of the Law. **

Others make the general objection that these statements should be interpreted as referring to the unreborn, who cannot fulfill the Law of God by the powers of nature. On the other hand, they say, the reborn can do this by the powers of grace.

We respond. These statements are universal, and their scope is also universal, for the Law is a yoke which none of us can carry. It requires the complete perfection of all our powers and actions. It is not satisfied by any kind of external or inchoate internal obedience but requires perfect love, free of every stain of concupiscence. No one, not even one who is reborn, can render this, since they only “have the firstfruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23), and, for those who would do good, “evil lies close at hand” (Rom. 7:21). Therefore the voice of the Law is the universal judgment of God that universally “confines all men under sin” (Gal. 3:22), “so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable” (Rom. 3:19). As a result, Christ says (John 5:45): “There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you set your hope.” The Israelites were received into the covenant of grace through circumcision, and the Spirit of adoption and renewal was given to them; yet the apostles confess that the Law was such a yoke, not only for the heathen but even for the circumcised Jews, that they could not bear it.

Bellarmine (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 14) raises the objection that the apostles were speaking only about the ceremonial law. (1) He tries to prove this from the occasion of the words. Luke writes [Acts 15] that some of the disciples rose up, saying that Gentiles who had been converted needed to be circumcised and that this was the reason why the apostles held a council to see about this claim. Therefore Peter is talking about circumcision and other such ceremonies. (2) He tries to prove it from the words of the decree (Acts 15:28–29): “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose upon you no burden beyond these requirements, that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from fornication.” These alone are called the “requirements” [necessaria] of the ceremonial law, not of the whole Law simply, otherwise Christians would be allowed to commit adultery, kill, steal, etc. (3) He tries to prove it from a summation of the decrees and words. The apostles want to remove the yoke of the Law from the necks of the [disciples].¹ If “removing the yoke of the Law” is understood to mean abrogating the Law as to its obligation, then it must necessarily be taken to refer only to the ceremonial law, for the moral Law is still binding. On the other hand, if “removing the yoke of the Law” is understood to refer to the notion of justification, then it follows that the ceremonial law has not been abrogated as to its obligation.

We respond. From v. 5 it is clear that the false apostles were raising two questions: (a) whether circumcision was still binding for the Gentiles and (b) whether the observance of the moral Law was necessary for justification. Luke writes (Acts 15:5): “Some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to charge them to keep the Law of Moses.’” The apostles responded clearly, first, that circumcision no longer bound the Gentiles, but they still wanted the Gentiles to observe a few ceremonial laws about blood and suffocated animals to avoid causing a possible scandal among the Jews. Along with those laws, they also listed from the moral Law abstinence from fornication, since the Gentiles did not consider it a sin. Then they say that the moral Law does indeed bind Gentile converts to obedience, but still maintain that works of the moral Law have no value for justification, which depends solely on the grace of God set before us in Christ. Given the aim of this decree, it is readily apparent how to respond to Bellarmine’s cleverness, for the question was not merely about the keeping of the ceremonial law but was also about the moral Law—whether one could hope for justification and salvation by keeping it. The apostles respond that the observance of the ceremonial law has been removed completely in the New Testament and that we cannot be justified or saved on the basis of the Law of Moses because it is an unbearable yoke. Therefore all refuge and every hope of salvation has been provided for us solely in the grace of God. Had the question been only about the ceremonial law, why would it be called a yoke impossible to carry? Those external rites do not surpass the powers of even the unregenerate man.

It is in vain that Bellarmine objects that the yoke is called “unbearable” because it was difficult and strenuous to bear. But this passage is not about its difficulty but about its impossibility, as the very sound of the words proves. Stapleton (Antidot., p. 325) discusses how, “because of the addition of the moral Law, the multitude of ceremonies was a difficult burden.” He must then admit that the apostles are not merely speaking about the ceremonial law because, if the ceremonial law was an unbearable yoke, then how much more so was the moral Law! In fact, in Luke 11:42 and Matt. 23:23 Christ compares the works of the ceremonial law and the moral Law and declares that the works of the latter are βαρὑτερα (“weightier”) than those of the former. I should like this to be well noted. Moreover, Luke also adds (Acts 15:11): “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus just as our fathers were.” From this we draw the following conclusions. The grace of God which justifies and saves us stands in opposition not only to the observance of ceremonies but also to the works of the moral Law. Therefore the observance not merely of the ceremonial law but also, and much more, of the moral Law is called an unbearable yoke. The first proposition is clear from the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, in which the works of that Law are excluded from the article of justification; from which Law “comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20); this Law charges all people with sin and condemns “the whole world” (v. 19); it is written on the minds of men (Rom. 2:15) and “was given because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19); about it, it says, “Whoever does them lives in them” (v. 12). Now, all this is applicable to the moral Law. Therefore the observance not only of the ceremonial but also of the moral Law is ineffective for justification and salvation. In addition, consider the disputation of Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, where he likewise speaks against false apostles and proves that we are justified by faith alone without the works of the Law, even of the moral Law, as we shall show in greater detail in its own place [On Justification through Faith (Commonplace XIX)]. From this we conclude that the question was not merely about the ceremonial law but also about the moral Law, as to whether the works of the moral Law are required for justification.

Second, the nature of the Law does not allow it.

§ 183. (II) We find that the second class of arguments [for the negative] comes from the nature of the Law.

** Bellarmine writes as follows (De grat. et lib. arb., bk. 5, ch. 4, § 7): “The commandments ‘You shall not murder’ and ‘You shall not steal’ command nothing but the voluntary omission of the outward acts of homicide and theft. The desire [concupiscentia] for another’s property and the hatred of a neighbor are forbidden by other commandments. Thus this is not violating the commandments ‘You shall not murder’ and ‘You shall not steal’; rather, it observes them according to the substance of the act of restraining the hand from theft and killing, even if perchance it goes against the commandment ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s property’ and ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart.’ ” Chapter 9: “It is unnecessary that all things be referred to God explicitly. It is enough for a work to be referred to a proximate end, for then it will be directed of itself to God as the ultimate end.” **

However, the apostle says (Rom. 7:14): “The Law is spiritual.” It requires not only an external but also an inner obedience of the spirit. It demands such complete perfection that nothing carnal be or be felt in our powers that would incline or draw us in another direction or keep the whole man from being spiritual and his motives from glowing with love. Luther: “Every commandment is so spiritual that it not only forbids the work and fruit and leaves and branches—that is, the words, works, and signs—but also the root and sap, that is, the desire from which such things come.”² Deut. 6:5 sets forth the summary of the moral Law: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your soul and with all your might, and your neighbor as yourself” [cf. Lev. 19:18]. We are commanded to love God not halfheartedly but with complete wholeheartedness, so that in love we place nothing ahead of Him nor make anything equal to Him, that we love Him alone, and, if we love anything else, that we love it because of Him, under Him, in Him, and according to His will. We are ordered to love God with all our mind so that we always think such things as can rouse us to love Him, that in all our pursuits and activities we have His glory set before us. We are ordered to love God with all our soul so that we zealously strive after those things which we know are pleasing and acceptable to God, that we perfectly hate all that we know is displeasing and opposed to Him. We are ordered to love God with all our might so that, clinging to Him with all our strength, we cannot be torn away from Him by threat or enticements, that all the powers of our soul and all the members of our body serve to love God and keep His commandments.

** A threefold totality of love is rigorously demanded: (1) A totality of the lovable object, and this is primary—that we love all of God and all things that pertain to Him—and secondary—that we love our neighbor, both friend and foe equally (1 John 4:21; Matt. 5:24), and this according to the entire Decalogue (James 2:10). (2) A totality of manner on the part of the lover, that our love toward both flow from a pure, clear fountain of the whole heart, which is the seat of our affections. This means that we should not only love God above all things by preferring Him to all other things (according to Becanus, p. 465)—truly, not in pretense or simulation (according to Bellarmine, De monach., ch. 13, p. 634); with a right heart, with all our strength (according to Costerus, ch. 4, p. 245)—but we should also love Him completely with all our members, most sincerely with all our strength of soul and body, so that all our thoughts, life, and understanding may be devoted to Him from whom we have the very things we are devoting. Augustine (De doctr. Christ., ch. 22), says that all the actions, impulses, and affections of our heart should come together to love Him. (3) A totality of time, that we love God and our neighbor perpetually and without ceasing (Deut. 6:12; 11:1). Thus a certain Jew, according to Helvicus (Disp. Giss., vol. 3, p. 178), says, “Since the inner heart comes first of all in the formation of man and is the last thing that dies, these words imply that God is to be loved with our whole heart constantly until the final moment of life.” A [threefold] perfection is required: (1) essential, from the whole soul and all strength; (2) integral, according to each and every commandment; (3) of occasion, at all times. **

This commandment about loving God is the rule and measure of obedience in the positive commandments, just as the commandment about not coveting is the rule and measure of obedience in the negative commandments.

** As long as “the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit” (Gal. 5:17), and as long as “the law of my members is at war with the law of my mind” (Rom. 7:23), we do not love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind but only in part and, thus, less than we should. Moreover, whatever is less than it ought to be is in fault since it violates its commandment (Deut. 4:2; 12:32). **

Augustine (De doctr. Chr., bk. 1, ch. 22):

You shall love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind so that you devote all your thoughts, your whole life, and all your intellect to Him from whom you have all that you offer Him. For when He says “with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind,” He leaves out no part of our life to be unoccupied and to make room, so to speak, to want to enjoy something else. Rather, whatever else suggests itself as something to be loved should be redirected to where the impetus of all our love runs.

Augustine again (De spir. et lit., ch. 26):

Someone might think that we lack nothing that belongs to the knowledge of justice because the Lord summed up and abbreviated His Word upon earth, saying that all the Law and the prophets depend on two commandments. He did not keep them silent but gave them in very clear language: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” What is more true than that all righteousness is completely fulfilled in these commandments? And yet whoever attends to the latter should also attend to the former. In how many instances do we all sin while thinking that the God whom we love is pleased or not displeased by what we do? Then later we repent and implore Him to forgive us after we have been warned through His Scripture in a sure and clear way and have learned that [our conduct] does not please Him. Human life is filled with such instances. So how is it that we know very little about what pleases Him? Is it not because we do not know Him very well? “For now we see through a mirror” [1 Cor. 13:12], etc. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might” belongs to eternal life. But to this life belongs “Let not sin reign in your mortal body to obey its desires” [Rom. 6:12]. To eternal life belongs “You shall not covet”; to this life, “Go not after your lusts” [Ecclesiasticus 18:30].

Again, Augustine (De perf. justitiae, at ratiocin. 17): “In the fullness of love—that is, in our fatherland—the commandment will be fulfilled: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.’ For while there still remains some carnal lust [concupiscentia] that must be restrained, God is not loved completely with all of the soul. In the future, however, when there will be no ‘law in our members’ [Rom. 7:23], we shall love God with all our heart.”

** God is to be loved: “With all our heart,” that is, with all our will, which is the beginning of all actions in the soul, just as the heart is the beginning of all movement in the body. “With all our soul,” that is, with our entire lower or sensitive appetite.³ (This is the meaning of Gen. 2[:7]: “Man was made into a living being”; that is, he began to live with an animate and sensing soul.) The will also drives this appetite as the upper sphere moves the lower orbs with its movement.⁴ “With all our strength,” that is, with all our powers to strive and act as the will commands. And as these all serve God for the sanctification of righteousness, so in the ungodly they serve iniquity to iniquity. Finally, “with all our mind,” that is, with our entire intelligence which, through a will informed by love, is moved to believe about God that which should be believed, to meditate about the beloved God, and to investigate those things that serve for the worship and glory of God. Therefore thus must God be loved, that our entire will, appetite, activity, and intelligence are brought to bear on Him and that none of these serves the world, our flesh, the devil, or sin. (Stapleton, Promt. moral., Dom. 12. post [Pent.], p. 294)

It is required that we love God with all our heart and with all our might, but the reborn have scarcely half their might available because they consist of the old and new man, the old and new heart, the old and new powers, which constantly oppose each other (Romans 7; Galatians 5; Ephesians 4; Colossians 3). Therefore much less can they love with all their might. Victor (on Mark 12): “This commandment is more abounding in repetition than others, using the same phrase regarding the same material. It does this to show that man should burn with so great a love for God that he allows nothing to creep into any faculty of the soul which might prevent or diminish love for God or transfer it to someone else.” Theophylact (on Luke 10): “We must then subject the vegetative⁵ faculty of the soul to the love of Christ. But how? Vehemently, not laxly. But we must also subject the sensitive faculty, and this strongly too; and, in fact, even the rational faculty, with all our might. Therefore we should surrender our entire selves to God and subject our nutritive,⁶ sensitive, and rational faculty to the love of God.” Anselm (on Matthew 22): “ ‘With all your heart,’ that is, with perfect understanding, that you leave no room for error in the confession of His Godhead; ‘and with all your soul,’ that is, with all your will, namely, that you desire nothing that is contrary to Him; ‘and with all your mind,’ that is, with all your memory, pondering nothing that would keep you from thinking of Him.” **

From all this I conclude that, even if we begin to obey the commandments of God in this life, we still fail in the First and Last Commandments.

[Bellarmine’s objections.]

(1) Bellarmine claims (De monachis, bk. 2, ch. 12): “Gregory of Nyssa (De creat. hominis, ch. 8), Anselm (on Matthew 22), Augustine (De doctr. Christ., bk. 1, ch. 29), and Bernard (on Song of Songs, sermon 20) interpret this commandment so that ‘soul’ means part of the vegetative soul; ‘heart’ means the sensing faculty; ‘mind,’ the intelligence or something of that sort.” However, he adds: “All these words probably mean exactly the same thing.”

We respond. Of course wherever we are commanded in Scripture to love God with all our heart, this does not imply that a lesser love is demanded of us than when the rest of the members are included and we are commanded to love Him with all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind. When God requires the whole heart, He does not exclude the intellect, will, and other powers but includes them simultaneously, for in the Hebrew way of speaking the word “heart” means all these. Nevertheless the other phrases are doubtlessly added for the sake of special emphasis and fuller clarification, so that we would understand that we owe all the powers of our soul, all the affections of our heart, and all the thoughts of our mind to the holy love of God. You see, because we receive whatever we have in us as a gift from Him, we are commanded, with the highest right, to devote all that we have to Him in obedience and love. Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 44, art. 5): “When we are commanded to love God with all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength, the four chief powers in man are designated, namely, the intellectual, volitive, sensitive, and motive. ‘Heart’ means the will, because it drives everyone even as the heart gives the [blood] flow of life. ‘Mind’ means intelligence; ‘soul,’ the sensitive power; ‘might,’ the motive power for the members of the body.”

(2) [Bellarmine objects:] This is an affirmative commandment. Therefore it commands only that we exercise those powers of the soul for the sake of God when necessity requires it for the sake of God’s glory, but at other times, if this were done, then there would be need for counsel and supererogation. This declaration of Bellarmine was taken from Biel (Sent., part 1, dist. 1, q. 4, art. 3) where he says, “Man is not actually obligated to love God totally whenever he thinks about God, but a habitual love is enough.”

** The Papist Joannes Hesselius says things similar to this. He writes: “On the basis of this commandment to love, man is bound at times to abstain from thinking about God so that, in a strange way, due to the love of God, he does not think about God and love God when he stops loving; against this one must set forth the contrary, that one must think about God more often than he must breathe.” Likewise, Molanus (Pract. theol., treatise 3, ch. 16, concl. 1, no. 11): “It is a matter of honor and not of necessity that we love God above all things.” The same (treatise 3, ch. 8, concl. 3, no. 19): “God does not command us to pray for our enemies.” **

We respond. But when could there ever be a circumstance when no necessity urges us to promote God’s glory? 1 Cor. 10:31: “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The commandment to love God above all things binds us perpetually because at no time should we ever be deprived of the love of the highest Good. If we are not yet driven completely by love of God; if we place anything ahead of Him or equate anything with Him in love; if we do not yet love everything that we should love on account of Him, in Him, and according to His will; if we have not yet set Him as the only end of all our affections, strivings, and actions; and if even the slightest corrupt thought and desire should arise in us that is opposed to pure and holy love—then we have not yet fulfilled this commandment completely. If we must love God with all our heart, there should be no affection of the heart which is not directed toward loving God. Augustine (De spiritu et lit., ch. 36): “Nothing remains in us that can be added to the whole, because if anything is left, then it is not the whole.”

(3) [Bellarmine objects:] Augustine and Bernard explain that “with all your heart” means that we are commanded to have all levels of love that we are able to have in this world or in the other, so that we always love God, and there is no contrary impulse of desire in us, whether voluntary or involuntary, which would conflict with the love of God. Based on this, they conclude that this commandment cannot be fulfilled perfectly in this life.

We respond. Very good. These outstanding interpreters of Scripture and unique luminaries of the church confirm our position. They deny that in this lifetime we can perfectly fulfill the commandment of love. The clarity of this commandment and the experience of the heart forced them to confess this.

What more does Bellarmine want? He counters that the same fathers affirm that, though this commandment cannot be fulfilled in this life, it does not merely make people transgressors if it is not fulfilled. This is because it commands in two ways. In the first way it indicates only that which must be done. In the second way it indicates by command that which must be done and the purpose for doing it. If a commander says to his soldiers “Fight against that city,” he is indicating only what must be done. However, if he says “Capture that city,” he is indicating what must be done as well as the purpose for doing it. This is the same as if he said “Fight to the end that you take the city.” So the commandment does not properly obligate to an end but to a means [according to Bellarmine], for the soldiers do not sin by not capturing the city, provided that they fight energetically and by their fighting strive to take it. So also Stapleton (De just., bk. 6, ch. 10): “This commandment to love God is instructive, not binding.”

We respond. This is a disgusting distinction, and we examined it in greater detail in our treatise On Actual Sins [Commonplace XV], § 44. Human laws are passed according to ability and require nothing beyond man’s powers. However, God’s Law commands us not only to try to aspire to the perfection of love which it prescribes but also to love to the degree of perfection which it requires. It is an indication of our corrupt reason that we act “according to ability” and “inasmuch as is in us,” and then think that God is not too concerned about the rest. However, the voice of the Law is exceedingly clear, demanding perfect love for God and declaring a curse upon “all who do not abide in all things which are written in the book of the Law” (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10). What sort of obedience the Law requires must not be evaluated on the basis of the strength of destituted nature but of instituted nature. Although we cannot in this life fulfill the commandment of love because of sin, which has come down to us through the fall of our first parents, nevertheless the Law still demands perfect fulfillment, and deservedly so, because God originally endowed the human race with the perfect and sufficient strength to fulfill it. Therefore we invert Bellarmine’s analogy (which Stapleton also uses, Antidot., Romans 7). Just as a soldier who has been endowed with perfect strength to take a city has not satisfied his responsibility by fighting strenuously but is further required to take the city in actuality, so also the first man was endowed with perfect strength to love God with all his heart and would have passed on that strength to his posterity, had he persevered in the integrity with which he had been created. Therefore by right God demands of us not only that we aspire to that love but that we actually do love Him with all our heart. 1 John 3:4: “All lawlessness is sin.” But now, not to fulfill that degree of love is lawlessness. Therefore not to fulfill that degree of love is sin.

Therefore Bellarmine is using great sophisms when he uses Augustine and Bernard to try to prove that “a lack of the perfect love which the Law requires is not sin before God”—for not only do those fathers nowhere say this, but they also clearly contradict it. Augustine (De spiritu et litera, ch. 36) says: “Therefore we are commanded to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our might, that we may be instructed as to what we should ask by faith and on what we should set our hope.” We are saying the same thing, that faith in Christ seeks perfect fulfillment of the Law and that the commandment of love is something we finally fulfill perfectly in eternal life. Does it then follow that the lack of such perfection is not sin before God? Of course not. The debt remains even if we are incapable of paying it. This is why Augustine adds: “As far as I see it, whoever has come to know by his progress how far he is from perfect righteousness has made a great deal of progress in the righteousness which shall be perfected. If, however,⁷ one can say that an inferior righteousness corresponds to this life—the righteousness by which ‘the righteous man lives by faith’ [Rom. 1:17], though he is a stranger from God, and thus ‘walking by faith and not yet by sight’ [2 Cor. 5:7]—then it is not ridiculous to say that it also belongs to such righteousness that it does not sin.” Bellarmine presses what follows in Augustine: “For it should not be credited with fault if it cannot yet be as great a love for God as is owed to that full and perfect knowledge. For it is one thing to have not yet reached the totality of love, but it is another not to pursue any lust.”

We respond. Augustine understands the word “fault” to mean mortal sin that makes us guilty in actuality before God. The imperfection of love should not be ascribed to this kind of fault. At the same time, however, if God wanted to enter into judgment with us, He could cast us out from His presence because of this imperfection. Because of this failing, our habitual or actual righteousness cannot be set against God’s judgment. That is why Augustine adds:

These testimonies of Holy Scripture cannot be false: “No one living will be justified in Your sight” [Ps. 143:2]. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8]. “There is no one who will not sin” [1 Kings 8:46]. Therefore I conclude that whatever sort or quantity of righteousness we can designate to this life, there is no man who is wholly without sin; everyone must give that it be given to him, forgive that it be forgiven him [Luke 6:37–38]. Everyone, if he has some righteousness, must not presume to have it of his own, but [must think] that it is from the grace of God who justifies. He must still hunger and thirst for righteousness from Him who is the bread of life and before Him who is the source of life, who works justification in His saints who are still laboring under the trial of this life, in such a way that He may still give with open hand to those who ask and mercifully forgive those who confess. Let [my opponents] find, if they can, a man living under the burden of this corruption who has nothing for God to forgive.

He writes in the same way (Contra duas epist. Pelag., bk. 3, ch. 7):

The virtue which now exists in a righteous man is called “perfect” to the extent that his perfection includes both the recognition of his actual imperfection and the confession thereof in humility. For his lowly righteousness is perfect according to this weakness in proportion to its measure when he understands what he is lacking. At this point the grace of God both gives him a desire to keep the Commandments and forgives him for anything in the Commandments which he does not keep.

Letter 26 ad Hieronym.: “Because of the fault of imperfection it says, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ [1 John 1:8]. This means that, however far we may progress, we must still say, ‘Forgive us our trespasses,’ even though everything has already been forgiven in Baptism. It is because of this fault that ‘no one living will be justified before God’ [Ps. 143:2].”

From Bernard (Sermon 50 on Song of Songs) Bellarmine cites the following:

It is no secret to the Lawgiver that the weight of the commandment surpasses the powers of man. However, this is the reason that He considered it useful for people to be admonished of their own insufficiency, so that they may clearly know to what end of righteousness they must strive with all their might. Thus the Lawgiver, by commanding the impossible, does not make men transgressors but humble.

Those are Bernard’s words. Note in them that he expressly says that the weight of the Commandments surpasses our powers. But if we were not obligated to that perfect degree of love, if we could fulfill the Law, then how would the Law be such a burden? What would surpass our powers? In addition, he says that we are admonished of our own insufficiency. This admonition is nothing but the accusation of the Law, as is clear from what follows in Bernard. Accordingly, when he adds that, when God commands the impossible, “He does not make men transgressors,” this must be understood in the sense that our insufficiency and the incapability of our powers are indeed revealed in the Law, but this happens not by some fault of the Law but by our own fault, as the apostle states in Rom. 7:12–13: “So the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means. It was sin, working death in me through what is good, that sin might be shown to be sin and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.” Bellarmine should pay attention to the words that immediately follow the ones he quoted from Bernard:

God, by commanding the impossible, does not make men transgressors but humble, so that every mouth may be closed and the whole world may become subject before God, “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified before God” [Gal. 2:16]. Hearing the commandment and realizing our failure, we shall raise our voices to heaven, and God will have mercy on us. On that day we shall know that “He has saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy” [Titus 3:5].

(4) Yet Bellarmine knows that he has been too generous in this concession, and so he looks for another way out. He says:

“With all your heart” does not mean every action of the heart or every possible intent so that the command is that we do nothing in our heart except love God with all the power of our love, but only that we love God with a special love and place nothing ahead of Him nor make anything equal to Him in our love. Thus this commandment contains only that which must be done, and not the end for which we are to do it.

Based on this interpretation, he concludes that all mortal sins are opposed to this commandment but that other things are not opposed to it: an honorable love for friends—though this is not referred to God in actuality—all venial sins, all involuntary inclinations of concupiscence and even of otherwise very serious sins, such as unfaithfulness, blasphemy, etc. He then concludes that this commandment can be kept perfectly in this life. He repeats this fiction in De amiss. grat. et statu peccati (bk. 1, ch. 12).

** There he writes: “ ‘With all your heart’ indeed means completely and perfectly so that we place nothing ahead of loving God, but it does not mean always and with continuous action in this life, for that is not required here but is only indicating the perfection of the life which is to come.” **

This was taken from Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 24, art. 8):

The perfection of love is understood either with respect to the one being loved—and thus no creature’s love is perfect since God is as lovable as He is good, and He is infinitely good—or with respect to the one doing the loving, when he loves as much as he can. This can occur in three ways: (a) When a man’s entire heart is devoted to God, which is the perfection of love in heaven. (b) When a man allots his affairs so as to have time for God and for spiritual matters while omitting other things, that is, inasmuch as necessity of the present life requires; this perfection is possible in this way (in this life). (c) When someone habitually lays his whole heart on God, namely, so that he thinks or wishes nothing that would be contrary to his love for God; this perfection is common to all who have charity.

We respond. Not only must we place nothing equal to or ahead of the love of God, but all things that should be loved must be loved on account of Him and in accordance with His will. Corrupt desires conflict with the love of God even when they do not have our consent or our delight because they are opposed to the commandment “You shall not covet.” Moreover, the sum of all the Commandments is love, and whenever corrupt inclinations arise in the heart, then one is not yet loving God with all his heart. Surely, one cannot deny that the Decalogue sets forth the form and norm of the love that a human being in a state of innocence would have shown to God. Surely this love would have been such that the purest flame of love would have glowed in all the might and power of the soul, nor would it ever have been extinguished for any length of time nor dimmed by the fires of corrupt desires. God still rightly demands from us this uprightness which in Adam was granted to all mankind.

The points which Bellarmine offers to confirm his interpretation can be explained simply:

(a) “Sometimes ‘the whole’ is used for ‘the greatest part.’ Therefore that is what is happening here.”

We respond. A conclusion must come from accurate details [ex puris particularibus]. He needed to prove that the significance of “the whole” by synecdoche⁸ has a place here. But the actual situation shows the contrary—God has endowed us not with a great part of our power but with all the power and might of the soul. Therefore we should love Him completely, not merely with a great part of our power but with all our entire might.

(b) “Some statements of Scripture show that this commandment is easy.” (c) “God promised to bring it about that He would be loved with the whole heart in the New Testament.” (d) “Many have fulfilled this commandment.” (e) “The fathers say that God does not demand the impossible from us.”

We respond. An explanation of all these points will follow in its own place [§§ 191–201]. Besides, we have discussed earlier in very great detail whether the first impulses of concupiscence apart from our consent are sins against God’s Law [On Actual Sins (Commonplace XIII), §§ 36–79]. Our argument asserts this, but Bellarmine denies it bitterly (De statu peccati, bk. 5, ch. 10).

The confession of all the saints testifies to the contrary.

§ 184. (III) We take the third class of proofs from the confession of all the saints, who lamented that they were sinners before God and that they were far from perfectly fulfilling the Law. Exod. 34:7: “Before God no one is innocent.” 1 Kings 8:46: “There is no man who does not sin.” Job 9:2–3: “Truly, I know that no man will justify himself before God. If one wished to contend with Him, one could not answer Him once in a thousand times.” Hence the Vulgate version adds in v. 28: “I was fearful of all my works, for I knew that You spare not the transgressor.” Job 15:15–16: “Behold, among His saints not one is perfect, even the heavens are not clean in His sight; how much more one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water?” Ps. 19:12: “But who can discern his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults.” Ps. 32:6: “All the saints must pray for the forgiveness of sins.” Ps. 130:3: “If You should mark iniquities, O Lord, who will stand?” Ps. 143:2: “Enter not into judgment with Your servant, for no one living will be justified before You.” Prov. 20:9: “Who can say, ‘My heart is clean; I am pure from my sin’?” Isa. 64:6: “All our righteous deeds are like a menstrual rag.” Dan. 9:5: “We have sinned and committed iniquity.” Verse 7: “To You, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us, confusion of face.” Verse 18: “We do not present our supplications before You on the ground of our righteousness, but on the ground of Your many mercies.” Rom. 7:14: “I am carnal, sold under sin.” Verse 18: “I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. Willing is with me, but perfecting what is good, that I do not find.” Verse 23: “I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.” 1 Cor. 4:4: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified.” 1 John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.” James 3:2: “We all stumble in many ways.”

From this arises a varied crop of arguments. Where there is sin, there is lawlessness. Where there is lawlessness, there is no perfect conformity with the Law, for breaking the Law and perfect fulfillment of it conflict with each other. James 2:10: “Whoever fails in one point is guilty of all of it.”

Whoever is of the flesh has not yet fulfilled the Law perfectly, which is spiritual. The regenerate are still partly of the flesh. The striving of flesh and spirit remains in them (Gal. 5:7). Therefore they do not fulfill the Law perfectly.

Whoever is afraid to depend on his own righteousness before God’s judgment has not yet fulfilled the Law, for why would one hesitate to rely on his own righteousness if he has fulfilled the Law perfectly? “He who has done them shall live in them” [Gal. 3:12]. Yet the saints are afraid to depend on their own righteousness before God’s judgment. Therefore they do not fulfill the Law.

If the regenerate themselves admit that they do not satisfy God’s Law, how much less do the unregenerate satisfy it? Because they lack faith, they cannot please God, and their works can only be sin (Heb. 11:6; Rom. 14:[23]).

** Regarding the passage in 1 Kings 8[:46], “There is no one who does not sin,” Schmaltzius raises an objection (Contra disp. 12. Frantzii de causis peccatorum): “Solomon is speaking about those who fall because of weakness and ignorance, but they are not captive to the law of sin, and also of those who have sinned before, but they can cease from sin and then serve God perfectly.” We respond. The context shows that Solomon is speaking about sins that are very serious, because of which God became angry and cast out His own children of Israel into a distant land belonging to their enemies and there afflicted them greatly until they were moved by their chastisement to return to Him by true repentance. **

Bellarmine’s objections.

Bellarmine raises various objections in different places.

(1) In De monachis (bk. 2, ch. 13) he says: “In Romans 7, Paul is speaking about involuntary impulses of concupiscence, and these are not sins.”

We respond. We showed the contrary in its own place [On Actual Sins (Commonplace XIII), §§ 37–42, 73–74].

(2): “Job feared for his works because he was afraid that he would mix some imperfection with them; but they fear properly who see that they can avoid the evil that they fear.”

We respond. If the whole imperfection that clings to the works of the regenerate can be avoided, then why does every saint pray for the forgiveness of sins? Why does Scripture universally declare that there is no one who does not sin? It is not simply and absolutely true that the only thing to fear is what can be avoided, for we are alarmed by a greater fear when we see evils threatening that we cannot avoid. Job despaired of his own merits and took refuge in the mercy of God and in his Savior, as have all the saints. The Gloss. ord. (on Job 9) says: “There are two things to fear in good works: idleness and deceit. Too small a love for God causes idleness, and a love for one’s own self causes deceit.” Gregory (commentary on that passage):

The righteous fear for everything in consideration of the Judge before whom they will stand. They count the evils of their own works but extol the gifts of God’s grace. They consider their corrupt works as severely as He judges them. They consider their good works as lightly as He values them. And they know without a doubt that they will perish if gentleness is removed when they are judged. Even seeming to live justly is sin if, when He judges our life, He does not pardon it before Himself with His divine mercy.

Anselm (commentary on 1 Corinthians 4): “Our life is evaluated according to His scrutiny, under whom even our virtues tremble in fear.”

(3) Bellarmine objects: “Isaiah is speaking in the persona of the most serious sinners. If they did any good works, they would befoul them at least morally by the admixture of their many iniquities.”

We respond. On the contrary, Isaiah is asking for the forgiveness of his sins in the way all the saints do. He does not hypocritically exclude himself from his public confession of all the people (Isa. 6:5): “Woe to me, for I am lost! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.” Although his iniquity and uncleanness were removed from him (v. 7), nevertheless he does not remove himself from the assembly of sinners when he says: “We have become like one who is unclean. All our righteousnesses are as a menstrual rag” (Isa. 64:6). Both the prior and subsequent contexts of this passage show this. Everyone who is grieved by a sense of public disaster also acknowledges his sins, deplores them, and asks for their forgiveness. And yet the prophets and the rest of the godly among the people of Israel are grieved by a sense of public disaster. Therefore they acknowledge their sins, deplore them, and ask for their forgiveness. Futhermore, the prophet clearly is speaking about righteous acts which, he complains, have been contaminated by sin. So who possibly could attribute righteous acts to serious sinners? Even if they were to do some external works that are morally good, they would still not be good in the sight of God, nor would they be worthy to be called “righteousness.” Bernard (Serm. 5 de verbis Esaiae, col. 250): “Our humble righteousness, if there is any, is perhaps upright, but not pure. Or do we think that we are better than our fathers, who used to say both truthfully and humbly: ‘All our righteousnesses are like a woman’s menstrual rag’? For how is righteousness pure when it still cannot be free of fault? Yet the righteousness of men can appear to be upright if it does not consent to sin, so that sin does not rule in their mortal body.” Gerson (De consol. theol., bk. 4, pros. 1): “Isaiah implicated himself with the rest and accuses himself in humble confession. The reason for this, we read, is: ‘All our righteousnesses are as menstrual rags.’ Who, then, will boast to show his righteousness to God any more than a woman would show the rag of her menstrual flow to her husband?” Adrian of Utrecht (In 4. Sentent., cited by Cassander in Consult.): “Our merits are like a walking stick made of reeds. It breaks as soon as one leans against it and pierces his hand. All our righteous deeds are as menstrual rags, for we continually stain the cloth of our life, which we weave by our righteous works, with the unclean blood of our various iniquities. So what confidence can we have based on these in the sight of God, who loves no one unless he has been converted with all his heart?”

(4) Bellarmine explains in this way the statement of the psalmist that no one living can be justified before God: “There is no one who does not have venial sins. But these do not hinder a person from being just and doing many good works. But in comparison with the initial righteousness of God, no one is righteous.”

We respond. David in prayer is averting the judgment of God, reasoning that no one can be justified before Him. Therefore he confesses that his righteousness cannot stand against God’s judgment nor endure His rigorous examination. To be sure, venial sins do not hinder or remove the righteousness of faith, since the regenerate confess and deplore them. They are not imputed to those who believe in Christ and crucify their flesh. Yet the righteousness that is proper to us, both habitual and actual, is hindered by these [venial sins] so that we cannot rely on it in the face of God’s judgment. If David could have fulfilled the Law of God completely, then why was he afraid to hold up his righteousness to the examination of divine judgment? Both comparatively and absolutely David removes every righteousness of works before the judgment of God, both from himself and from others, just as he testifies in Ps. 32:1 that all the saints need the forgiveness of sins. Augustine (commentary on Psalm 142, vol. 8):

“In Your truth hear me. Hearken unto me in Your righteousness” [Ps. 143:1], not in mine, that I may be found in Him not having a righteousness of my own, which is of the Law, but that which is of faith [Phil 3:9]. For when I look at myself, I find nothing except sin. Who wants to enter into judgment with God except those who are ignorant of God and wish to establish their own righteousness? He (David) is right to be humble in the Body of Christ, to learn from the Head, for He is gentle and humble of heart [Matt. 11:29]. Thus he says, “Enter not into judgment with Your servant” [Ps. 143:2]. Let us not go into court. I wish no trial with You so that I may promote my own righteousness while You convict my iniquity. Why? Why are you afraid? “Because no one living will be justified in Your sight” [Ps. 143:2]. And here I am, surely living, living in the flesh, a man who is going to die, born and living, living of men, an Adam living from Adam. Every living man, then, can justify himself before himself but not before You. How before himself? He pleases himself; he displeases You. Before You no one living will be justified. Therefore “do not enter into judgment with me, O Lord my God.” However right I may appear to myself, You produce Your rule from Your treasury. You measure me against it, and I am found to be corrupt, etc.

Bellarmine (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 14) responds to the statement of James, “We all stumble in many ways” [James 3:2], and to that of John, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” [1 John 1:8]: “These should be understood as referring to venial sins, which are not sins simply but imperfectly and in a certain respect. They are not contrary to the Law but outside the Law.”

We respond. This is a useless distinction, and we struck it down completely in our treatise On Actual Sins [Commonplace XIII, §§ 90–101]. Every sin, regardless of its size or character, is lawlessness, an aberration from the Law, a transgression of the Law. Hence it is not only outside the Law but also contrary to it. Bellarmine first dealt with Durandus, Cajetan, Vega (Conc., bk. 11, ch. 20), Azorius (Instit., bk. 4, ch. 8), and Vasquez (In Thom., disp. 143, ch. 4, no. 8)—all of whom concede this.

In De amissione gratiae et statu peccati (bk. 1, ch. 12) he engages James’s statement:

[James] uses the word “offend” far differently when he says in ch. 2[:10], “Whoever offends in one point is guilty of all its points”; and when he says later (ch. 3[:2]), “We offend in many ways.” In the former he is speaking about a criminal offense; in the latter, about venial offense. In the former he lists serious sins which properly and completely are against the Law, but in the latter case he adds: “Whoever does not offend in word is a perfect man.” There he says that he is speaking about the kind of offense that is opposed to perfection, not one that is opposed to necessary integrity.

We respond. Both statements of James are universal: “We all stumble in many ways” and “Whoever offends in one point is guilty on all points.” It is clearly Pharisaic to say that the Commandments are insignificant and that, by trangressing them, one does not sin against the Law. Christ shows this in Matt. 5:19. The same one who said “You shall not commit adultery” also said “You shall not covet.” Therefore not only he who commits adultery but also he who covets acts against the Law and becomes guilty of sin in God’s sight. Bellarmine (in the previous ch. 11) judges that it is absurd to claim that as soon as a just man commits one venial sin he is truly and completely a transgressor of the Law and is thereby guilty of breaking all of God’s Commandments. This would not have happened to man if he would recognize a righteousness other than that which is of the Law, namely, that which is of faith, if he would remove the veil and look upon the shining face of Moses. But we shall say more about this in its own place [On Good Works (Commonplace XX), §§ 39–40, 65, cf. §§ 134–43].

Fourth, Scripture says that we are not justified through the Law.

§ 185. (IV) We find the fourth group of arguments from the statements of Scripture which testify that people cannot be justified in the sight of God and be saved through and from the Law. Whoever can render perfect and complete obedience to the Law can also be saved and justified through the Law. But no man can be justified and saved through the Law. Therefore no person is able to render perfect and complete obedience to the Law. The major premise is of unshakable truth. Lev. 18:5: “You shall keep My laws, and by doing them a man shall live.” Ezek. 20:11: “I gave them My statutes and showed them My ordinances, by whose observance a man shall live.” Luke 10:28: “Do this, and you will live.” Rom. 7:10: “The commandment was unto life.” Gal. 3:12: “He who does them shall live by them.” The minor premise is just as certain. Gal. 3:11: “It is evident (δῆλoν) that no man is justified before God by the Law.” Rom. 3:20: “By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified before God.” If we could be justified before God by the Law, the works of the Law would not be excluded from the act of justification, and yet they are clearly excluded. Rom. 3:28: “We hold that a man is justified through faith apart from works.” Gal. 3:[10]: “All who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse.” We shall say more about this in the article On Justification [Commonplace XIX], where with the same effort we shall strike down Bellarmine’s objections which rely on a distinction between the works of the ceremonial law and those of the moral Law, between the works of free choice and those of grace, between the works which precede faith and those which follow it, between first and second justification.

** The Photinians distinguish between “works of the Mosaic moral Law and the works of the Law that Christ performed more completely in the New Testament.” Yet this hypothesis is false. **

Here we must examine what Bellarmine writes (De justific., 4): “In Gal. 3:[10–]11 the apostle does not mean that they are cursed who seek to be justified by fulfilling the Law, only those who believe that they can be justified and fulfill the Law by their own powers without faith and grace.”

We respond. The false apostles against whom St. Paul is arguing in this passage were not excluding faith from justification but were combining works of the Law with it, as is clear from Acts 15:5: “Some from the party of the Pharisees who believed (πεπιστευκότες) stood up.” If they were not among those who had devoted themselves to Christ, they surely would not have been such a bother and nuisance to the apostle with their false doctrine. Against such men the apostle demonstrates that justification is by faith and not by the works of the Law. He used, among others, this argument taken from the curse of the Law: The Law of God declares each and every man cursed who does not abide in all the things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. But now, there is no one who abides in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. Therefore all men are under the curse of the Law. Suppose with Bellarmine that the apostle’s argument is limited only to fulfilling the Law by our own strength apart from faith and grace. [The apostle’s argument] will then be irrelevant to the aim the false apostles had set for themselves; it will be irrelevant to the Galatians’ thinking, who had not yet cast away their faith in Christ nor had they decided to do so.

Fifth, the Son of God came into the world for this purpose: to fulfill the Law in our place.

§ 186. (V) We find the fifth class of arguments from those passages of Scripture which testify that the Son of God was sent into the world for the purpose of giving perfect obedience to the Law in our stead, so that this might be imputed to us through faith, and so that by it we might stand in the presence of God. If man could satisfy the Law perfectly, there would be no need for Christ’s merit. But the latter is absurd. Therefore so, too, is the former. The truth of the logical sequence depends on the apostle’s declaration (Gal. 2:21): “If justification were through the Law, then Christ died for no reason (δωρεάν).” If we could fulfill the Law perfectly and be justified through it, then what need was there for Christ to experience so many hardships, troubles, and sufferings?

Here belong all the statements of Scripture which speak about the purpose of the Lord’s incarnation, the fruit of His suffering, as well as about the formal cause⁹ of our justification, which will have its own place later [On Justification through Faith (Commonplace XIX), §§ 195–250]. Here we shall evaluate the following. Acts 13:38–39: “Through Christ forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and [justification] from everything from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” Rom. 8:3–4: “For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; concerning sin He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the justification (δικαίωμα) of the Law might be fulfilled in us.” Matt. 5:17: “I have come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.”

They object that Christ earned for us the grace of God and the Holy Spirit so that we might be able to fulfill the Law. We respond. Of course Christ grants us not only His righteousness but also the Holy Spirit, who writes God’s Law in our hearts, who makes us zealous for good works, who turns our hearts to show spontaneous obedience, etc. However, that obedience is still not in every respect perfect and absolute in this life since “we have only the firstfruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23). The wrestlings of the flesh and the Spirit remain (Gal. 5:17). Our renewal grows “day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). We need the forgiveness of sins daily (Matt. 6:12). Therefore, whatever the character of this inchoate obedience of the reborn may be, it is not the kind of perfect fulfillment by which people can stand before God’s judgment and merit eternal life. Rather, for justification they need God’s grace and Christ’s merit not only in the first reconciliation but also throughout the whole course of their life.

The objection of Bellarmine.

Bellarmine raises the objection (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 14): “Christ is always our Mediator, however much we ourselves may fulfill the Law, both because He always supports us with the strength and grace to do good works and because He cleanses our sins, albeit insignificant and daily, and, having converted us, again accepts us into His grace.”

We respond. Those sins of ours by which we daily transgress the Law of God are not of themselves and by their nature insignificant, seeing as Christ Himself calls them debts (ὀφειλήματα) (Matt. 6:12). Remove the umbrella of grace and they make us guilty of eternal damnation. Thus we are in daily need of the priestly intercession of Christ at the right hand of the Father, which depends on the worth of the merit that Christ has provided. Rom. 5:[1–]2: Not only “having been justified by faith do we have peace with God through Christ,” but also “through the same we have access by faith to that grace in which we stand.” Eph. 3:12: “In Christ we have boldness and access in confidence through faith in Him.” Heb. 4:15–16: “We have a high priest who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace for help in time of need.” 1 John 2:1–2: “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He Himself is the propitiation of our sins.” Therefore, even though Christ’s benefit is great, one must still accurately distinguish it from the second benefit of regeneration, the daily renewal of us through the Holy Spirit; and the glory of justification must not be ascribed to our inchoate obedience. You see, even though it stems from the new powers granted to us by Christ, our Mediator, through the Holy Spirit, nevertheless because it is weakened by the flesh and cannot attain the perfection the Law demands, it cannot be passed off as a perfect fulfillment of the Law nor as perfect righteousness that can stand before God.

Bellarmine writes that our position “makes Christ a lazy mediator, as if He by His magnificent obedience were unable to make the justification of the Law be fulfilled in us.” There is a simple explanation to this. The justification (τὸ δικαίωμα) of the Law is completely fulfilled in us by the benefit of Christ, our Mediator. Whoever would deny this would be loudly contradicting the apostle who asserts this in Rom. 8:4. Yet it is fulfilled not by inherence [inhaesione] but by imputation; not by works, but by faith. It is fulfilled in this life inchoately; in the life to come, consummately.

Bellarmine should be careful that people of his persuasion do not make Christ a lazy mediator. They think that the sin which still clings to the flesh of the regenerate is not sin of the proper category. They think that daily weaknesses are sins which of themselves and by their nature are insignificant. They think that there are a great many remedies against those sins in addition to Christ’s merit, such as, for instance, the sprinkling of holy water; episcopal, sacerdotal and monastic blessings; the beating of the breast; the silent and mindless repetition of the prayers of the hours; etc.

Sixth, the experience of the reborn is opposed to the perfect fulfillment of the Law.

§ 187. (VI) We find the sixth class of arguments in the experience that belongs to the regenerate. Who feels that he is fervent enough in his love for God? Who does not feel that at times he has become lax in fearing God? Who endures his afflictions with the kind of great patience that God’s Law demands? Who is always attentive and assiduous in his prayers? Who does not ever doubt that his prayers are heard? Who beholds the good fortune of the ungodly without ever turning back his eyes¹⁰ or silently grumbling in his heart? Who fulfills all aspects of his office every day? Who always loves his neighbor not only in words but also in thought and in deed; not in pretense, but in truth; not for a while, but constantly; not on the surface, but deeply; not only one who does him good but also one who persecutes him? Who is not sometimes titillated by corrupt desires? Yet all these things are not outside of the Law but contrary to it. They are not middle things but are truly and by their nature sins. They are not the effects of instituted nature but the defects of destituted nature and the fruits of our flesh.

** Rom. 3:10, 12: “No one is righteous. There is no one who does good.” Therefore no one fulfills the Law perfectly. Pererius objects (on Romans 3, disp. 6): “These statements should not be applied simply to every kind of people but to all men of a wicked and ungodly people, among whom it truly may be said that there is no one righteous and no one who does good.” But this runs contrary to the apostle’s aim to prove that all men are guilty of sin. Rom. 3:9: “We have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Again: “That the whole world might be accountable to God” [Rom. 3:19]. Furthermore, the aim of Psalm 14 also conflicts with his objection. From that psalm we see that all men standing before the judgment of God are accused of being guilty of sin—not some people, but each and every one of them. Therefore the Holy Spirit expresses that usefulness in three ways [Ps. 14:3; cf. Rom. 3:10–12]: (1) Through the expressed affirmative “all,” which is denoted by the Hebrew demonstrative which marks, as if with a finger, that this is talking about those whom the apostle has been discussing in the previous verses, that is, the children of men, born of a father and mother. (2) Through the combining particle (“all together” or “all alike”) so that no one is excepted. (3) Through the negation that excludes no one at all, “not even one.” All Scripture, both prophetic and apostolic, agrees with this. “There is no one who does not sin” (2 Chron. 6:36; 1 Kings 8:46). “With God the innocent man is not innocent” (Exod. 34:7 [Vg]). “There is not a righteous man who does good and does not sin” (Eccl. 7:20). “A righteous man falls seven times” (Prov. 24:16). “No one can say, ‘My heart is pure’ ” (Prov. 20:9). Thus Chyrsostom (on Psalm 14) concludes from these words that even blessed Mary was subject to original sin. **

Seventh, allegories teach this very thing.

§ 188. (VII) Allegories can be cited here to show that the yoke of God’s Law cannot be carried on our shoulders. Although allegories do not provide firm and conclusive arguments, they greatly embellish and delight, provided that the firm and immovable foundations have been laid on the basis of the literal meaning of Scripture.¹¹ Thus the heavy hands of Moses (Exod. 17:12) signify that the Law is a “burdensome yoke” (Isa. 9:4). The radiant face of Moses (Exod. 34:29) shows that we cannot gaze intently upon it and bear the splendor of the Law (2 Cor. [3]:13). The heavy and difficult tongue of Moses (Exod. 4:10) convicts us for being unable to obey its precepts fully. The stone tablets of the Law (Exod. 24:12) crush our heart; they do not heal it.

** In Num. 19[:1–10] the priest who had kindled the wood and the other one who had gathered the ashes from the scarlet heifer were unclean until evening. So also in this life, until its evening, we are unclean in all our works. **

Just as Joshua, not Moses, led the children of Israel into the Promised Land, so the heavenly Joshua, Christ, through the teaching of the Gospel, and not Moses through the Law, leads us to eternal life. Luther (Praefat. in libros V. T., Jena Latin, vol. 3, p. 67):

The Law has three kinds of disciples. The first are those who hear the Law but hold it in contempt and lead a shameful life without any fear. The Law does not reach to these. The worshipers of the calf in Exodus were figures of these, for Moses did not bring the Law to them but, enraged, smashed the tablets of the Law. The second are those who try to keep the Law by their own powers without God’s grace. They are prefigured by those who could not bear the glory on Moses’ face when he brought the laws again. The Law does indeed reach to them, but since they cannot bear it, they cover it with a veil and lead a hypocritical life by pretense of the external works of the Law. However, the Law condemns their works as sin once the veil has been removed. Indeed, it convicts us and shows that our powers are nothing but that only Christ’s grace is needful for us. The third now are those who are able to fix their eyes on Moses’ face without a veil. That is, they know the Law truly and see how impossible it is to keep it by human powers. At this point the power of sin and the influence of death show themselves. They are the giant Goliath’s spear, the tip of which weighed six hundred shekels of iron [1 Sam. 17:7]. So all the Israelites flee from it except for one: David, that is, Christ our Lord, who has freed us from all those monsters. For unless Christ overshadows the glory of Moses’ face with His own greater glory, no one could endure the brilliance of the Law, that is, the terrors of sin and death. Therefore [this third kind] cast away all works and every presumption about their powers and know no other use for the Law except through it to recognize their sins and to desire Christ desperately, etc.¹²

In words shortly before this, Luther relates how, though the three apostles did see Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor, they were not afraid of them because there was glory on Christ’s face that removed all fear from their hearts.¹³ Chemnitz (Harm., ch. 51, f. 228) composes this allegory: “In the Old Testament the publication of the Law was so terrifying that the people could not climb up onto the mountain but instead were crying out: ‘We cannot bear to hear that voice’ [Exod. 20:19]. Yet when Christ the Mediator explains the Law, adding His fulfillment—or when the Gospel uses the ministry of the Law adding its forbearance [ἐπιείκεια] to it—then the crowds do climb up onto the mountain where Christ is explaining the Law and marvel at the efficacy of His teaching (Matt. 7:28).”

Also pertinent here is Christ’s parable in Luke 10, where the whole human race is depicted by the man traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho who, falling among thieves, was robbed and despoiled of all his belongings and was also seriously wounded, etc. The priest and the Levite pass by, giving no help to the poor man. In this the Law of God is signified, of which they were ministers. The Law indeed sees the misfortune and wretchedness of man—namely, sin and death—but it neither helps nor relieves people. In Matthew 18 a certain servant is brought into the presence of his lord. The servant owes him ten thousand talents. The servant does not deny his debt, but neither can he pay it. Therefore he deserves to be given eternal imprisonment. All people owe God the sum of debt like this; they have transgressed all the commandments of the Decalogue in many ways; they cannot pay this debt by their own power, and therefore they are accused and condemned by the Law. The parables of the lost coin and of the lost sheep in Luke 15 also pertain to the same thing.

The statements of the ancients.

§ 189. All the ancients give their assent to this position as often as they assert that the concupiscence which still clings to the flesh of the regenerate is sin, and as often as they say that we cannot stand in God’s presence by our own righteousness. Here belong especially the statements in which they clearly say that the Law cannot be fulfilled in this life. Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph., p. 252): “The whole human race will be revealed to be liable to the curse according to the Law of Moses. For anyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law to do them is called ‘cursed’ [Deut. 27:26]. Clearly no one has done them all exactly.” Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 20, p. 211): “When the Law, which was given by Moses, came, it did indeed take death’s kingdom away, exposing him as a thief and not a king, and showing that he is a murderer. However, it burdened man who has sin in himself, showing that he is guilty of death. For since the Law is spiritual, it only revealed sin but did not destroy it.” Origen (on Romans 3): “Who will boast rightly about his chastity when he reads it written that ‘if anyone looks at a woman to desire her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ [Matt. 5:28]? Who will glory in his righteousness when he hears the prophet say that ‘all our righteousnesses are as menstrual rags’ [Isa. 64:6]? Therefore our boasting is solely in our faith in the cross of Christ, which excludes all boasting that comes from works of the Law.” Cyprian (Expos. orat. Dom.): “Lest anyone delight in himself as an innocent man and perish more by extolling himself, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, and he is commanded to pray for his sins daily.” Macarius (Homily 38) shows that “those who by God’s grace are illumined, directed, and made peaceful and good people still in truth consider them selves to be greater sinners than all men.”

** Origen (on Numbers, homily 10, not far from the beginning):

It is worth asking how some are called holy and yet there is a written account of their sins. You see, contrary to how some think, it is not the case that as soon as one becomes holy he can no longer sin and must always be thought to be without sin. If saints do not sin, then it would not have been written: “You will bear the sins of the saints” [Num. 18:1]. If a saint could be without sin, the Lord would not, through the prophet Ezekiel, tell the angels whom He was sending to punish sinners: “Begin with My saints” (Ezek. 9:6). If the saints are without sin, why do these very same fall victim to the punishments of sins first? If the saints could be without sin, then Scripture would never say that “the man who is just in the beginning of his speech is his own accuser” (Prov. 18:17).

Lactantius (bk. 6, ch. 11): “No one can be without sin so long as he is burdened with the garb of the flesh, whose weakness is subject to the dominion of sin in three ways: in deeds, words, and thoughts.” Augustine (Letter 89):

Everyone needs the Lord’s Prayer, which the Lord gave even to the very rams of His flock, that is, to His apostles. Everyone should say to the Lord: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” [Matt. 6:12; Luke 11:4]. Anyone for whom these words in the prayer are unnecessary must be declared to live in this world without sin. But if the Lord would have foreseen that anyone would be better than even His apostles, then He would have taught them a different prayer in which they would not ask for the forgiveness of their sins since they all had already been removed from them in Baptism.

Bernard (on Song of Songs, sermon 75, f. 789): “Even the saints have need to pray for their sins so as to be saved by mercy, not trusting in a righteousness of their own.” **

Ambrose (on Romans 2): “They are not righteous who hear the Law but who believe in the Christ whom the Law promised. This is what it means ‘to do the Law.’ Everyone who does not do the Law does not trust in the Law inasmuch as he does not accept the One to whom the Law bears witness. All salvation is in the Law about Christ. Therefore he keeps the Law who believes in Christ. If he does not believe, he is a transgressor of the Law because he does not accept Christ, whom the Law foretold would come for justification, something the Law could not do.” On Romans 4: “How do the Jews think they are justified through the works of the Law by the justification of Abraham, when they see that Abraham was justified not by the works of the Law but by faith alone?” On Galatians 3: “‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in everything.’ This is written in Deuteronomy [27:26], because if anyone had omitted anything of the Law, he was considered cursed. Moreover, the Commandments are so great that it is impossible to keep them, which is why Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles [15:10]: ‘Why do you impose a yoke upon your brothers which neither our fathers nor we have been able to carry?’”

** Isidore of Pelusium (bk. 1, Letter 100, p. 26): “Tell this to the disciple of arrogant Novatian. Why do you boast so stubbornly as if you are pure? Why do you pretend that you are without sin? Why do you deny your association with nature? Isaiah declared that he was unclean [6:5; 64:6]. David acknowledges that every man is a liar and that all have been conceived and born in sin [Ps. 116:11; 51:5]. Even God Himself says that men are amazingly inclined to zealous wickedness and are in need solely of the balm of mercy. Do you still boast arrogantly of your prideful purity?” Ambrose (on Galatians 3): “Because no one could fulfill the Law, all were guilty of the curse of the Law, so that it would take vengeance against them. But Christ was born a man, was offered for us, and redeemed us from the devil.” **

Jerome (on Galatians 2): “Because no one is justified before God by the Law,” (etc.), “and because no one keeps the Law, it is said that believers must be justified by faith alone.” Again (on Gal. 5[:4], “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the Law”): “If you place your hope in the Law and believe that you can be justified by it, then you think that Christ’s grace is weak. What you have already obtained freely you are trying to gain by your own efforts as if you did not already have it.”

** Jerome (on Matthew 11): “There are many commands in the Law which the apostle clearly teaches cannot be fulfilled.” Again (commentary on Galatians 2): “It is worth assembling here the great many things that have been commanded in the Law which no one can fulfill.” Contra Jovin. (bk. 1, f. 13): “After the flood, the Law was given which no one could fufill.” **

Augustine (Retract., 1, ch. 19): “All the Commandments of God are considered done when whatever is not done is pardoned.” Bellarmine cites this one passage from the fathers in support of our position, and he responds to it as follows (De justif., 4, ch. 14): “Augustine is speaking about the highest perfection of fulfilling the Law, which we shall not reach in this life.” We, too, are claiming the same thing. We do not deny the inchoate fulfillment of the Law, but we do deny that it is completed in the highest degree of perfection, because we need the forgiveness of sins. Bellarmine objects: “Through penitence we gain pardon for transgression, and in this way the Commandments are considered fulfilled.” Yet the forgiveness of sins comes not through the works of the Law and through our satisfactions but from faith in Christ, from the Gospel, etc. (as we shall show in greater detail in its own place [cf. On Repentance (Commonplace XVIII), §§ 39, 85–93]). Augustine again (Letter 29 ad Hieron.): “Charity is that virtue by which we love that which we should love. It is greater in some than in others, and in still others it is nonexistent. The fullest charity that can no longer be increased is in no one so long as he lives here. Moreover, so long as it can be increased, it is surely something less than it should be, which comes from vice. Because of this vice, ‘no one living will be justified in Your sight’ [Ps. 143:2]. Because of this vice, ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves’ [1 John 1:8].” [Augustine] (De actis cum Felice Man., bk. 2, ch. 11): “For the Law was given to arrogant men who attribute everything to their own powers so that, because they could not fulfill the Law given them, they might be found to be transgressors, and so that having become guilty under the Law they might seek mercy from God, their Creator.”

** [Augustine] again (on Exodus, q. 105): “Because no one who is doing it fulfills the Law in every detail, propitiation is from above. We need God to be favorable to us, and therefore it is established from above because His mercy surpasses His judgment.” **

[Augustine] (De spiritu et lit., ch. 5): “That commandment” (about loving God above all things) “can be done before men but not before God, who looks at the heart itself and its innermost wish.” Sermon 49 de tempore: “Therefore it says the fufifllment of the Law is ‘You shall not covet.’ What living man can do this? The psalm that was just sung helps us: ‘Hear me, O Lord, in Your righteousness’ [cf. Ps. 143:1]—that is, not in mine.”

Sedulius (on Romans 7): “The Law is spiritual because it commands spiritual things. It orders the difficult works of the Spirit; it forbids sin and, therefore, cannot be fulfilled.” On Romans 10: “He who believes in Christ has the perfection of the Law. After all, because no one was justified by the Law because no one had fulfilled the Law except the one who hoped in the promise of the Christ, faith was given to believe instead of the perfection of the Law, so that faith would make satisfaction for the Law in everything that was omitted.”

Charlemagne (De imagin., bk. 1, ch. 15): “God imposes on man the yoke of the Law, but man cannot carry it.” (See also the preceding ch. 14.)

Chrysostom (on Gal. 3[:11], “The righteous from faith shall live”): “This shows not only that justification is from faith but also that salvation cannot come through the Law.” He says: “After no one kept the Law, but all became liable to its curse because of their transgressions, an easier way was devised through faith. This thing is the greatest proof that no one can gain righteousness from the Law, for the prophet did not say ‘The righteous shall live from the Law,’ but ‘from faith.’ The Law is not of faith.”

** [Chrysostom] again (on Galatians 2): “The Law commands the doing of all things that are written in it, and it punishes whoever does not do them. Thus we all are dead to it because no one has fulfilled it.” **

Primasius (on Gal. 3[:19], “Why, then, the Law,” etc.): “‘Because of transgression,’ it says, not ‘because of justification.’ Hearing this, let them hold their tongues who madly think that the Law has brought anyone into the kingdom of heaven.”

Theophylactus (on Gal. 3[:11], that “no one is justified by the Law,” etc.): “Having shown that the Law makes people cursed and that faith blesses, he goes on to show that faith alone justifies.” And later: “Before men the righteous might be able to seem occupied with the Law, as the Pharisees justified themselves before men. Therefore because the Law did not justify because of the difficulty of its works but rather kept people subject to its curse, grace came and showed an easier way, namely, faith, through which we have been justified and blessed.”

Nilus (Gnom.): “The more you advance in the Law, the more you realize your lack of perfection.”

Bernard (Sermon 2 in vig. nativ., col. 37): “Therefore He has commanded His Commandments to be kept beyond measure so that we, seeing how our imperfection falls short and cannot fulfill what is owed, may flee for refuge to His mercy and say, ‘Your mercy is better than life’ [Ps. 63:3].” On Song of Songs (Sermon 50, col. 642): “The love the Law demands cannot nor ever could be fulfilled in this life by anyone. Who would dare to claim for himself what Paul himself admits he did not achieve? The Lawgiver was not unaware that the weight of the commandment surpassed man’s powers,” etc. On Song of Songs (Sermon 73): “If He keeps record of our iniquities, who even of the elect will stand [cf. Ps. 130:3]? Therefore even the saints have need to pray for their sins that they may be saved by mercy, not trusting in a righteousness of their own. For all have sinned and need the mercy of God.”

** [Bernard] again (on Song of Songs, sermon 50):

There is love in action and also love in affection. I think the Law was given to men and the commandment fashioned in regard to the former, which has to do with work. For when it comes to affection, who behaves as commanded? Therefore the former is commanded for merit, but the latter is given as a reward. Its beginning and progress can be experienced by divine grace even in this present life—this we do not deny. However, we reserve its full consummation for our future happiness. Why, then, would He command that which could by no means be fulfilled? But if you would rather think that the commandment about the love of affection has been given to you, then I do not argue, provided that you also concede to me that no human in this life is or will be able to fulfill it. **

Radulphus (on Leviticus, bk. 20, ch. 1): “What man does all the things the Lord has commanded? We do not have such blessedness or such merit that we obey them all. Surely there is no man on earth who does good and does not sin, nor will anyone living be justified in His sight [cf. Ps. 143:2].”

Lombard himself says (Sent., bk. 3, dist. 27, letter E): “The measure of God’s love is implied when it says ‘with all your heart,’ that is, with all your intellect; ‘with all your soul,’ that is, with all your will; ‘with all your mind,’ that is, with your memory so that you give all your thoughts, all your intelligence, and all your life to Him from whom you have the very things you give Him. In saying this He leaves out no part of our life for it to be unoccupied, but whatever comes to the mind should be seized in the direction the impetus of love runs.” Letter F: “Moreover, this commandment is not completely fulfilled by man in this mortal life—but partly, not wholly. For we love partly, just as we know partly; but, in time to come, it will be fulfilled wholly.” Letter G: “But why does He demand this perfection of man when no one has it in this life? Because he does not run straight who does not know whither he should run,” etc.

See, now you know why God commands what cannot be completely fulfilled here.

The Papists’ position regarding the perfect fulfillment of the Law.

§ 190. The Papists follow the authority of the Council of Trent and claim that people, especially the reborn, can fulfill the Law of God completely in this life. The Council of Trent has the following (sess. 6, can. 19): “If anyone says that the Commandments of God are impossible to keep, even for one who is justified and established under grace, let him be anathema.” Bellarmine (De monach., bk. 2, ch. 13): “If man could not fulfill the Law, it would follow that man never sins, for he does not sin who does not do what he cannot do, and God would be much more unjust and far more cruel than any tyrant, demanding a tribute which no one could pay, and that from His friends.” Ibid.: “The consensus of the fathers is that God has not demanded of us the impossible.” De justif. (bk. 4, ch. 10): “All” (Roman) “Catholics confess that God’s Law is absolutely possible for the just, not indeed solely through the powers of free choice, as heretics falsely accuse us of saying, but by the help of the grace of God and by the Spirit of faith and love infused in us in justification itself.” Chapter 13: “Man can do more than God has commanded. Therefore he can all the more fulfill the commandment of God.” De Rom. pontific. (bk. 3, ch. 23, antith. 6): “We are not afraid to assert that a man, justified by the grace of God, can by the aid of the same grace both fulfill the Law and by that fulfillment merit eternal life.” Cornelius Jansenius, an otherwise moderate and learned writer (Concord. evang., ch. 81), calls our position about the impossibility of fulfilling the Law a “blasphemous doctrine and an impious blasphemy against God.”

** Petrus a Soto (Method. confess., [published at] Dillingen in 1564, p. 77): “So pleasant, so sweet are the divine Commandments, especially to one who has love and to human nature, as if kith and kin, that it is much more difficult to transgress them than to keep them. How much more difficult it is to commit acts of adultery, murder, theft, and the like than to abstain from them?” Isidore (according to Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 18): “He swore that for forty years he had not felt a sin in his heart nor had he even consented to lust or to anger.” Cens. Col. (f. 49): “The regenerate can attain the perfection of the Law in this life with their own works.” Folio 194: “We satisfy the Law completely and abundantly if we do as much as lies within us.” Binsfeldius (Recept. conclusion., sect. 4, p. 880): “With the specific assistance and help of God, a just man can for a long time and, in fact, until the end of his life avoid all mortal sins and fulfill all the Law that obligates him under mortal fault.” Petrus Cudsemius (Viv. specul., loc. 11, p. 105): “God’s Law and Christ’s commandments are not only not impossible to do, but, for those who are willing and who love God, they are so possible that they are the way for them. They are easy, light, not a burden.” **

In fact, not only do they confidently assert that the reborn can fulfill the Law perfectly, but they even argue that the same can perform works of supererogation (which would better be called “works of super arrogance”).

** [Petrus] a Soto (Assert. cathol., De lege, p. 59): “Not only can man fulfill the Law in this life, but he can do more, greater, and holier works than what the Law commands him to do. For we pay somewhat more [supererogamus] than these things to which we are obligated by necessity.” **

Bellarmine (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 13): “A man can do more than God commands. Therefore all the more can he fulfill a commandment.” [Tilmannus Smelingus] (De septem sacram., p. 304): “How many thousands of saints do we think there were who not only fulfilled Christ’s commandments but also observed the evangelical counsels¹⁴ and have paid many things in overabundance? They endured terrible tortures, much more than satisfying what they had owed because of their sins!”

** The Photinians and Arminians do not differ much from the Papists. P. Bertius (preface to Tractatus Arminiani de vero et genuino sensu cap. 7. ad Rom.):

The ancient church did not list the question about the impossibility of doing the Law among its chief parts. This is clear even from Augustine. He wants Pelagius to acknowledge that it can be done by the grace of Christ, and he declares that there will be peace. In fact, Christ’s very apostles were engaged in convincing people outside of grace about [man’s] inability to show obedience. However, you will find scarcely a word said by them about the imperfection and inability of the regenerate. On the contrary, they attribute to the regenerate the crucifixion of the flesh and of lusts, the mortification of the works of the flesh, the resurrection into new life, and walking according to the Spirit. Also, they are not afraid to testify openly that [the regenerate] overcome the world through faith.

Sommerus, a Photinian, as well as Crellius ask (Tract. de justificat.): “What Scripture ever said that the good works of man cannot stand before the judgment of God judging according to the Law He has set forth?” (for no one can compare himself with God Himself). Socinus (De Christo servat., part 1, ch. 4) calls it “the hyperbole of our theologians when they write that our righteousness is always as far from the perfection of Christ as heaven is from earth.” Schmaltzius (Refut. thesium Frantzii, contra disp. 6, De bonis operibus, f. 176) sets up a double perfection: One is “completely absolute,” when one never sins, not even once. The second is “comparative,” when one does not remain in any habitual sin. Regarding the first [kind], he says: “Even though it is extremely difficult actually to attain that [perfection] because of weakness of the flesh, it is still not completely impossible.” And later: “God wanted man to learn of His supreme kindness and fairness from the fact that though He could rightly demand of them a completely perfect obedience, nevertheless He was content with the sort [of obedience] that did not surpass human powers.” Arminius (Resp. ad 31. artic., pp. 164–65): “I am not opposed to Augustine’s opinion that man is able to be without sin in this life.” Resp. ad 9. artic. (p. 176):

The keeping of the Law must be evaluated according to the mind of the Lawgiver. Since He wanted the Law to be observed either rigidly, on the highest level of perfection, or only according to mitigation [ἐπιείκειαν], there is a twofold answer to the question Can the faithful under the grace of the New Testament keep God’s Law perfectly in this life? One cannot keep such a Law of God perfectly if it is considered as having to be kept rigorously. However, if He demands [obedience] according to mitigation, and what is demanded is viewed in proportion to our abilities—which must be said—then, because He demands [obedience] under the Gospel covenant, the answer must be that one can render perfect obedience.

Arminius again (Artic. perpend., De regenerat., § 4, opp. p. 785): “Whoever says the regenerate are able to keep the Law perfectly in this life through the grace of Christ is not a Pelagian, nor does he dishonor the grace of God, nor does he establish justification by works.” Vorstius (Apol. exeg., p. 111): “The obedience required in the Law of God is impossible for us in a certain respect and by accident. For insofar as we remain outside of the justifying and regenerating grace of God and as long as that condition lasts, according as we are now ruined, our striving is from within ourselves. Yet it remains true that God does not command anything through the perfect will of God Himself that we cannot fulfill, at least to the extent that God Himself may graciously rejoice in this obedience in the end.” Page 112: “God causes us to desert ourselves voluntarily so that we may be able and willing to keep His Commandments through His grace, and at least keep them in actuality to such a degree that God mercifully becomes satisfied with our keeping [of them].” Venator (Declar., p. 174): “I do not believe that God can rightly demand of men what they could not do by nature [nativitate]. [I do not believe] that He is unwilling to give them the powers to do this but still is willing to condemn them because they did not fulfill the impossible good and did not omit inevitable sin.” **

Furthermore, lest Bellarmine complain that people of his faith are being falsely accused of claiming that the fulfillment of the Law is possible solely by the powers of free choice, we set before him the arguments of the Scholastics. Biel (Sent., part 2, dist. 28, q. 1, art. 3): “Through free choice and of his natural powers man can fulfill God’s Commandments with respect to the substance of the act but not with respect to the intent of the Lawgiver, which is the result of eternal salvation.” Biel again (Sent., part 1, dist., q. 2, art. 3): “A pilgrim¹⁵ can love God of his own purely natural powers because his will is able, of its own natural powers, to conform itself to every dictate of right reason; moreover, the reason can show that an object of this kind must be loved.” He repeats this in Sent. (part 3, dist. 27, q. 1, art. 3), where, in accord with the opinion of Scotus, Occam, and Pierre d’Ailly, he shapes the following proposition: “The human will of a pilgrim is able to love God above all things of its own natural powers.” Nicolaus de Orbellis (Sent., part 2, dist. 28, q. 2): “God’s Commandments are not beyond man because God gives the grace that makes acceptable [gratiam gratum facientem] to every one who wants to dispose himself. Through this grace he can fulfill them not only as regards the kind of work but also as concerns the intent of the Lawgiver.” Johannes Cochlaeus (Confess. August., art. 18) shows that some Papists approve this:

Those who claim that by his natural powers man cannot do God’s Commandments insofar as the substance of the act is concerned seem excessively to denigrate man’s nature (which is clearly a good work and the image of God) and seem to rob it of its natural goodness which it has from God and which by his reason prays for the best things, as Aristotle says in his Ethica. They even seem to deprive God Almighty of His great goodness, kindness, and mercy while crediting Him with having imposed on man commandments which are impossible to do. After all, everyone knows that it is more tyrannical than kingly to pass laws that are impossible for one’s subjects and to impose burdens upon them too heavy to carry.

The arguments of our adversaries.

§ 191. Let us examine the arguments of Bellarmine and of others. Their first class of arguments has been taken from Holy Writ.

** Deut. 30:11: “This commandment which I command you this day is not beyond you,” etc. This is the argument of Conzen (commentary on Romans 10). We respond. It is clear enough from the context of this passage and from Rom. 10:5–9 that Moses is not speaking about the Law but about the Gospel. Deuteronomy 30 says that this word is neither hidden nor far off; that they who were driven out because of their sins should repent and that, thus repentant, they should be brought back into their homeland and received again into grace. Rom. 10[:6, 8]: “The righteousness which is from faith says,” etc. “The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach.” Mark 9:23: “All things are possible for one who believes.” We respond. The discussion there is not about God’s Commandments but about the miraculous healing of one beset [by an evil spirit]. The disciples did not believe he could be healed. Christ responds to them: “[All things are possible] to one who believes that I came from the Father and I have from the Father such complete power to work all kinds of purifications.” Yet even if this were explained as being about the Law, believers can do all things only through Christ, who has become their righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). **

First, Matthew 11[:30]: “My yoke is easy.”

(I) “In Matt. 11:30 Christ says, ‘My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.’ Therefore God’s Commandments are not only possible but even easy.”

We respond. (1) “The Law is a yoke which no one can carry” (Acts 15:10).

(2) Therefore Christ’s statement must be taken as referring to the yoke of the cross but not the yoke of the Law. This is readily concluded from comparing other passages of Scripture and from the circumstances of this passage. You see, just as Christ says (Matt. 16:24), “If any man would come after Me, let him take up his cross,” so in this passage He is promising rest and revival to those who come to Him. For the flesh, however, He imposes the yoke of the cross, lest we interpret this promised rest to refer to the delights and pleasures of the flesh. “Yoke” is most commonly used in Scripture for “slavery” and serious discipline. Therefore the cross laid on us by Christ is called a “yoke” and a “burden” because it restrains the flesh, controls it, and holds it within limits. It is called “Christ’s yoke” because He imposed it of His own goodwill and because we bear it by Christ’s example, who in His body sanctified the yoke of the cross. The burden is called ἐλαφρόν (“light”) because God “does not permit us to be tested beyond our ability” (1 Cor. 10:13). This is why the apostle calls it τὸ παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως [“the light affliction of the present time”] (2 Cor. 4:17). These words were seemingly taken from this saying of Christ. The yoke is called χρηστός (“easy and agreeable”) because in the cross the Spirit stands by us to help with His grace and comfort so that we may bear it patiently and even “rejoice in our sufferings” (Col. 1:24).

(3) Even if this “yoke” were to refer to Christ’s teaching, this would not detract from our position. Christ’s teaching is a pleasant yoke and a light burden with respect to the Law, which is a “yoke of a burden” (Isa. 9:4) and “a yoke impossible to carry” (Acts 15:10). To it Christ has subjected Himself in our stead, and He has freed us from its curse. [It is also an easy yoke and a light burden] with respect to our inner renewal through the Holy Spirit. In this renewal, God’s Law is written in our heart so that we may gladly obey it. Christ removed from believers the yoke of the Law, that is, its curse and harshness. However, lest we use that freedom from the yoke of the Law’s burden as freedom to do whatever our flesh desires, He further mentions His own yoke, the new obedience of the regenerate which throws off the old man and puts on the new man. Christ calls this yoke of His “easy” and “light” because believers walk in good works, not according to the harshness of the Law—as if to merit salvation by perfect obedience to the Law or to be condemned because of failure—but according to the forbearance [ἐπιείκεια] of the Gospel. That is, they embrace perfect fulfillment of the Law by faith, and, having been renewed by the Spirit, they delight in God’s Law according to the inner man. Although this obedience does not completely satisfy the rigor of the Law, it still pleases God because it comes from faith and from His beloved children. Any imperfection or flaw is pardoned them for Christ’s sake.

Second, 1 John 5:3: “The Commandments of God are not heavy.”

§ 192. (II) “1 John 5:3: ‘The Commandments of God are not heavy.’ Therefore all the less are they impossible.”

We respond. In different respects God’s Commandments are heavy and are not heavy. They are heavy and, in fact, impossible to bear with respect to the perfect fulfillment we must render according to the rigor of the Law. In this respect the Law is called “a yoke of a burden” (Isa. 9:4). But they are light: (1) With respect to imputation, seeing as the perfect obedience Christ rendered to the Law is imputed to believers by faith. It is clear from 1 John 3:23 that this imputation must not be excluded: “And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another.” Also, in 1 John 5:3, after the apostle says that God’s Commandments are not heavy, he gives the reason in vv. 4–5: “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ?”

(2) They are light with respect to inchoate beginning [respectu inchoationis], for the Holy Spirit inwardly renews the regenerate and kindles true and genuine love for God in them. Through this they obey God with a free spirit, not burdened, not coerced, as the apostle says (1 John 5:3): “This is the love of God, that we keep His Commandments; and His Commandments are not heavy.” In this respect the regenerate “delight in the Law of God” (Rom. 7:22) and are “zealous for good works” (Titus 2:[14]), that is, according to the inner man. However, at the same time they “see in their members another law at war with the law of their mind” [Rom. 7:23]. Thus they cannot bring their obedience before the judgment of God as perfect fulfillment of the Law, but ask that their failures, imperfections, and blemishes be forgiven for Christ’s sake. Augustine (Ad Bonif., bk. 3, ch. 7): “In this life, God’s grace grants eagerness to keep the Commandments and at the same time gives pardon for whatever in those Commandments is not kept.” In this forgiveness of sins, the godly have a remedy prepared for them. Through this forgiveness whatever is left undone is forgiven, and it is particularly in this respect that the Commandments are not heavy for them.

Bellarmine objects (De justif., bk. 4, ch. 11): “That nonimputation either removes the obligation of the Law so that the transgressor incurs no guilt, or it removes the guilt which comes from transgression. If it removes the obligation, it causes the Law not to be the Law and the yoke not to be a yoke. If it allows the guilt to be taken away and, once taken away, to be paid for, then it does not make the yoke pleasing and the burden light. In fact, it reveals that the yoke is very difficult and the burden very heavy indeed, since it cannot be carried. Surely if oxen under the yoke kept falling at every step, and even if they kept getting up again by the plowman’s continual effort, still their yoke would not be called pleasing and their burden light.”

We respond. The reborn have been freed through Christ not only from the curse but also from the rigor of the Law. They are “no longer under the Law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14). “The Law is not destroyed by faith” (Rom. 3:31) but rather is “established by it.” This is how one should view it. Although the obedience of the reborn does not achieve the perfection prescribed in the Law, nevertheless the lightning bolt of its curse does not actually threaten them since they are in Christ by faith. But now, “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). Yet at the same time this does not diminish the Law’s power to obligate even the reborn to render perfect obedience and to subject them to its curse were they not reborn, that is, were they not possessing the perfect obedience Christ rendered to the Law through faith in Him and were they not “freed in Christ from the law of sin and death through the law of the Spirit of life” (Rom. 8:1–2). But because they are indeed in Christ and led by the Spirit, the Commandments of God are not heavy for them, though otherwise, with respect to the flesh corrupted by sin, they are of themselves very heavy—nay, impossible to bear.

Third, the reborn love God and neighbor. Therefore they fulfill the Law.

§ 193. (III) “God’s Commandments are fulfilled through love. John 14:23: ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word.’ Rom. 13:8: ‘He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.’ Gal. 5:14: ‘The whole Law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”’ Yet the reborn love God and neighbor. Therefore they fulfill the Law.”

We respond. It is not a love of any kind or degree that satisfies the Law but the kind and degree of love that is exactly congruent with the norm of the Law. It never labors under any imperfection, nor is it faulted by any corrupt desire. Christ describes the nature of true and genuine love as that which hears and takes to heart the Word of God—which means both the Law and the Gospel—and is eager to obey God’s Commandments. Paul commends love to us as the sum and summary of the Law, which is especially fit to have been commended to us.

Bellarmine responds, saying (1) that he does not deny that love in this life is imperfect because it can grow and will become greater in our heavenly homeland; but it must be denied that in this life [love] cannot be so perfect that it is sufficient to fulfill the commandment, for we cannot be Christ’s friends and disciples unless we fulfill this commandment of love.

We respond from Augustine (loc. cit.): “So long as love can be increased, surely it is less than what it ought to be; it is characterized by failing [ex vitio]. From this failing ‘no living person will be justified in God’s sight’ [Ps. 143:2]. Because of this failing, ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves’ [1 John 1:8].” It is not our love that makes us Christ’s disciples and friends. 1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Clearly we never love God unless we are first loved by Him. Through the Holy Spirit He works a true love of Him in our hearts, and this love demonstrates that we are Christ’s disciples and friends. This love also is truly pleasing to God, though it is imperfect and covered with many warts. John 13:35: “By this they will all know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.” 1 John 4:19: “We love God because He first loved us.”

(2) [Bellarmine responds] that Deut. 30:6 foretells that in the New Testament people will love God with their heart and all their soul.

We respond. A bit later we shall clarify the ambiguity of that way of speaking, “with all your heart” [§ 195].

Some people are called perfect.

§ 194. (IV) “Scripture teaches that people are perfect in this life. Therefore they surely have perfect love and perfectly fulfill the Law, for love is the bond of perfection. Gen. 6:9: ‘Noah was a righteous and perfect man.’ In Gen. 17:1 God says to Abram: ‘Walk before Me, and be perfect.’ Matt. 5:48: ‘Be perfect, as your heavenly Father in heaven is perfect.’ Matt. 19:21: ‘If you would be perfect, go, sell,’ etc. Phil. 3:15: ‘Let those of us who are perfect think this way.’ 1 John 4:12: ‘If we love one another, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us.’”

We respond. This argument has been taken from the Pelagian school, and Augustine gives a thorough response to it in De perfectione justitiae contra Coelestium.

** In De perfect. justit. [Augustine] teaches that “the man can be called ‘just’ who comes so very close to the perfection of righteousness that he is right next to it.” De peccat. merit. et remis. (bk. 2, ch. 13): “Therefore on earth there are just men, great men, the brave, the wise, the self-controlled, the patient, the pious, the merciful, those who with equanimity bear all temporal ills for righteousness’ sake. But if it is true—nay, because it is true—that ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves’ [1 John 1:8] and ‘no living person will be justified in Your sight’ [Ps. 143:2], then they are not without sin, nor is any of them so insane as to say that he does not need to pray the Lord’s Prayer for his sins, whatever they may be.” Chapter 16: “It was necessary for the perfecting of this great man” (Paul) “that the angel of Satan not be taken away from him. [Paul] was afflicted by him so that he would not become puffed up due to the greatness of the revelations. Is there anyone so bold as to think or claim that anyone under the yoke of this life is completely pure of all sin, though some so excelled in righteousness that the Lord speaks to them from a pillar of cloud?” The previous chapter (ch. 15): “When someone’s perfection is mentioned, one must consider in what respect.” And later: “It is possible to be already perfect as a hearer of wisdom though not yet perfect as a teacher [of wisdom]. One may understand righteousness perfectly, but not yet be a perfect doer [of righteousness]. One can be so perfect that he loves his enemies, but not yet so perfect that he suffers. And in the case of a man who is perfect in that he loves all men, and has even come to love his enemies, it may be asked whether he is already perfect in that loving too. That is, does he love those he loves just as the unchanging rule of Truth has commanded them to be loved? Therefore when we read in Scripture about someone’s perfection, we must carefully examine in what respect this is discussed; for it does not mean that someone is utterly without sin just because he is said to be perfect in one thing. Yet even in this one can speak this way of him being considered deserving of the title [‘perfected’]—not because there is nowhere left for him to progress, but because he has progressed to a very great degree.” **

A summary of the response comes down to this. (1) There are some commandments that demand perfection. Yet the question is not whether the command exists, but whether the thing that has clearly been commanded can be fulfilled in the body of this death where the flesh lusts against the Spirit. Some testimonies mention the end goal itself whither one strives and runs, for you cannot run aright without knowing whither to run. Nevertheless no one reaches this end goal in this life before his course is finished. Some testimonies speak about inchoate spiritual benefits; but others, about consummate ones, which will exist only in eternal life.

(2) The regenerate are called “perfect” because their remaining imperfection and impurity is covered by the petition: “Forgive us our trespasses.”

(3) In Scripture’s way of speaking, “perfect,” “whole,” “spotless,” etc., signify the one who has a good conscience, that is, he who is free of damning crimes and who does not neglect to cleanse his venial sins with daily prayer. Augustine points out these sources of the true explanation, and we place them against the Papists because they are unafraid to reintroduce the arguments of the Pelagians, long since expelled, to the center stage in the church.

Furthermore, to make the matter even clearer, we posit the following distinction. One perfection is absolute, which we can call the perfection of degrees [perfectio graduum]. The other is respective¹⁶ and conditioned. For the sake of teaching, we shall call it the perfection of parts [perfectio partium]. Absolute perfection is completely rendering the highest degree of obedience that the Law demands. Such perfection existed in Adam before the fall and existed also in Christ, who rendered to the Law total and absolute obedience on every level and degree. Such perfection does not exist in the reborn except by imputation to the extent that Christ’s perfect obedience is imputed to them through faith. Col. 1:28: “That we may present every man perfect in Christ.” Col. 2:10: “In Him you have been completed (πεπληρωμένoι).” Heb. 10:14: “By a single offering He has perfected (τετελείωκεν) for all time those who are to be sanctified.” Conditioned perfection is the sincere obedience of the reborn according to the total Law which has begun in this life but which will be consummated finally in eternal life. Or it is the serious and sincere striving [studium] to obey God according to all His Commandments, though it falls short with respect to degrees. We do not deny attributing this perfection to the reborn. Of this we correctly use the ancients’ saying: “Part of perfection is to acknowledge imperfection.” Phil. 3:12–13: “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to take hold of it because Jesus Christ has taken hold of me as His own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have taken hold of it,” etc.

This obedience of the reborn is called perfect: (1) With respect to all the commandments, seeing as the reborn strive to obey each and every one of God’s commandments, even though their obedience is inchoate. Ps. 119:6: “Then I shall not be put to shame, when I have respect unto all Your commandments.”

(2) With respect to sincerity. The reborn obey the Law and resist corrupt impulses with a true and unfeigned heart, with genuine and unhypocritical desire. Ps. 119:34: “With the whole heart have I searched out Your commandments.”

(3) With respect to their good and holy conduct, leading life without complaint, “blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). Thus Noah is called “a just and perfect man in his generations” (Gen. 6:9).

(4) With respect to the weak, who have not yet reached that degree of knowledge and obedience. Eph. 4:13–14: “Until we attain to the unity of faith, to perfect manhood, so that we may no longer be children.” Heb. 5:13–14: “For everyone who lives on milk is a child, but solid food is for the perfect.”

Absolute perfection, both of knowledge and of obedience, is denied to the regenerate in this life in clear words (1 Cor. 13:[9–]10; Phil. 3:12). Augustine (De grat. Christi contra Pelag., bk. 1, ch. 49, from Ambrose): “The apostle says that many still living in this world with him are perfect. If you consider them according to true perfection, they cannot be perfect since he himself says: ‘Now we see through a mirror darkly, but then face-to-face. Now I know in part; then I shall know even as I am known’ [1 Cor. 13:12]. So also there are spotless people in this world, and there will be spotless people in the kingdom of God. Of course, if examined more closely, no one can be spotless because no one is without sin.”

** Chrysostom (on Genesis, homily 23): “Noah was perfect in his generation, at that time, in that perverse generation which had become so inclined to evil that it refused to countenance any trace of truth.” Habakkuk, when asking why the ungodly swallow up the righteous, says that “he swallows up the man more righteous than himself” (Hab. 1:13). Here he praises the righteous man as righteous not simply but according as he is compared with the wicked. Ambrose (De Noë et arca, ch. 11, vol. 4, p. 153): “He deliberately added ‘in that generation’ so as neither to condemn his elders nor to exclude his” (faithful) “posterity, but rightly to assert that the flood happened for the destruction of that generation which had no part in justice.” God Himself explains what sort of perfection He means (Deut. 18:13): “You will be perfect with the Lord your God,” namely, so that you listen to Him alone and not to impostors. 1 Kings 11:4 says of Solomon that “his heart was not perfect before the Lord,” namely, because he went after heathen gods. Josh. 24:14: “Serve the Lord perfectly and truly, and put away foreign gods.” **

Fifth, it is said that some loved God with all their heart.

§ 195. (V) “Scripture teaches that some people kept the commandments, especially the one about loving [God] with all one’s heart and not coveting. Ps. [119:10]: ‘I have searched you out with all my heart.’ 1 Kings 14[:8]: ‘You have not been like My servant David, who kept My commandments and followed Me with all his heart, doing only what was pleasing in My eyes.’ Acts 13[:22]: ‘I have found in David, the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will.’ 1 Kings 15[:5]: ‘Because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that He had commanded all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah.’ Likewise, regarding Josiah, 2 Kings 23[:25] says, ‘There was no king like him before him, who returned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might.’ Likewise, about Asa and his people, 2 Chron. 15[:15] says, ‘They sought the Lord with their whole will and found Him.’ Again, about Joshua, Josh. 11[:15] says: ‘As the Lord had commanded Moses, His servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua fulfilled it all; he left nothing undone of all the commandments, not even one word which the Lord had commanded Moses.’ There is no doubt that similar things can be said about Abraham, Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, and the other prophets. In the New Testament, we read about Zechariah and his wife (Luke 1[:6]): ‘And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the Commandments and ordinances of the Lord without complaint.’ Of His apostles, the Lord says (John 17[:6]): ‘They have kept Your word.’ He also calls them ‘friends’ in John 15[:14], and yet in the same verse He adds that only those are His friends who ‘keep His commandments.’ Moreover, the apostle Paul clearly shows in Romans 7 that he does not sin when he covets unwillingly, because he is not committing the act himself, and thus is keeping the Law, which, when it commands ‘You shall not covet,’ commands the will and not sensation, which is incapable of receiving [capax] the Law.”

We respond. Now we are hearing Pelagius brought to life again, for (according to Augustine, De nat. et grat., ch. 36) he also mentions a long series of those who are said not only not to have sinned but also to have lived righteously: Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joshua son of Nun, Phineas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, etc. But Augustine responds as follows (ibid.):

If we could gather together all the saints, men and women, while they lived here and could ask them whether they were without sin, what do you think they would say? What he

(Pelagius)

says or what the apostle John says? I ask you. Regardless of how much they excelled in holiness while in the body, if they could be asked this, they would cry out in unison: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8]. Would they perhaps give that answer more in humility than in truth? But it already pleases him—and rightly so—“not to locate the praise of humility on the part of falsehood.” And so if they spoke the truth, they would have sin, which they would be confessing humbly, because the truth [would be in them; but if they would lie about this, they would still have sin, because the truth] would not be in them.¹⁷

Therefore we respond in general. The phrase “with all your heart” has two meanings. (a) It expresses the perfect obedience required by the Law, that we should love God to the highest degree of perfection and in every detail and on every level show Him absolute obedience unstained by any blot of corrupt desire or of any other sin. (b) It denotes genuine and nonhypocritical obedience. In this respect it is the opposite of hypocrisy and outward pretense, for this is the way Scripture describes hypocrisy. Ps. 12:2: “They have spoken with heart and heart.” 1 Chron. 12:33: “They were prepared to fight, without heart and heart [absque corde et corde].” Jerome renders this “without a double heart [non in duplici corde].” This is explained in v. 38: “They were ready to fight with a perfect heart.” Therefore whenever the regenerate are said to love God with all their heart and to keep His commandments, the meaning is that they love God without pretense and without hypocrisy, but truly, with the whole mind and whole heart, sincerely. However, at the same time they admit that they do not achieve the highest degree of perfection as often as they confess their sins and ask for their forgiveness in faith. Additionally, they are still partly carnal, which is why their love for God and their obedience to God’s commandments is so very often contaminated by the corrupt impulses of covetousness. We have struck down the shameful subterfuge that lusts of the flesh are not sins in its own place in greater detail [On Actual Sins (Commonplace XIII), §§ 124–79].

If the apostle completely removes the evil of concupiscence from himself, then how can what he says at the end of the chapter stand: “Although I serve the Law of God with my mind, yet in my flesh I serve the law of sin” [Rom. 7:25]? These words show irrefutably that that very apostle who, with his spirit and mind renewed by the Holy Spirit, is in service to the Law of God, with his flesh (which certainly is his very own flesh) serves the law of sin; and, consequently, he is not yet perfectly fulfilling the Law of God. Augustine states it beautifully (De perfect. just., respo. 16): “While there still exists some carnal covetousness, even if restrained by self-control, one does not love God in every way with all his soul. The flesh does not covet without the soul, though the flesh is said to lust because the soul lusts carnally.”

** De perfect. just.: “This is the same thing that” (Job) “said, ‘I have kept His ways; I have not turned aside from all His Commandments, nor shall I depart from them’” [Job 23:11–12]. The Pelagians used to adduce this passage to prove the perfection of righteousness in this life. [Augustine] responded: “That man keeps the ways of God who does not wander off so as to leave them behind but who advances by running in them. Even if he sometimes stumbles and staggers in weakness, he still progresses by lessening his sins until he should arrive at the point where he is without sin. He can only accomplish this by keeping His ways. So it is the apostate who turns aside from the Commandments of the Lord and leaves them, not the one who, though he has conflicting sin, keeps persevering with it until he reaches that place where he must no longer contend with death.” Retract. (bk. 1, ch. 19): “It is right to ask whether that perfection can be understood so that it is still true that no one still using the choice of his will is living here without sin. For by whom can the Law be kept down to the last detail except by him who does all the divine commandments? But in the same commandments we are commanded to say, ‘Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ The entire church keeps praying this petition to the end of the world. Therefore all commandments are considered done when whatever has not been done is forgiven.” **

If the apostle is saying that lust of the flesh is not sin, then why does he so often and with such clear language call it sin? Why does he so wretchedly lament on account of it? Why does he strive so hard to be liberated from that slavery of sin?

In particular, we respond to the examples Bellarmine has cited in this way. (1) David was a man after the heart of God, but at the same time he still prayed to be “cleansed from hidden sins” (Ps. 19:12). He asked that his “iniquities be completely overlooked” (Ps. 130:3) and that God’s “judgment be turned away” from himself (Ps. 143:2). In fact, he admits that all the saints, and thus even he himself, are in need of the forgiveness of sins (Ps. 32:5). Consider also that a glaring exception is added in 1 Kings 15:5: “He did not turn aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the word of” (the matter of) “Uriah.”

** Compare 1 Kings 15:1–3 with 1 Kings 14:21–23, and it will be clear that the discussion is about keeping religion free from idolatry. Jerome, speaking of David (Contra Pelagianos, bk. 3), argues that no one has been without sin. He says: “For the sake of example, let us use but one testimony. ‘I found David, the son of Jesse, to be a man after My own heart, who does all My wishes’ [Acts 13:22]. There is no doubt that David was a holy man. Yet the man who was chosen to do all the wishes of God is reprimanded for having done certain things. Certainly it was possible for the one chosen for this to do all the wishes of God. God is not to blame, for He prophesied that David did all the wishes of His commandments. Rather, he is at fault who did not do what had been prophesied. God did not say that He had found a man who would always forever do all the wishes of His bidding.” **

(2) Josiah turned to the Lord with all his heart and did according to all the Law of Moses because he, moved with zeal for piety and religion, abolished idolatry and restored the true worship of God with greater affection of heart than any other king. The words “according to the whole Law of Moses” concerns especially the integrity of the worship he restored, because he omitted none of those things that had been prescribed in the Law in regard to the discarding of idolatry and the renewing of the true worship, as is clear from the context. Nevertheless Josiah’s fall, in addition to the general statements,¹⁸ reveals that he was far from a perfect and absolute fulfillment of the Law, for he died in an unnecessary war which he incited against the king of Egypt.

(3) With Asa the situation is clear. Although he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and abolished idolatrous worship—it is in this respect that it says he sought the Lord in all his will—he still did not remove the high places. Yet because of his sincere and nonhypocritical obedience, his heart is said to have been “perfect before God all his days” (1 Kings 15:14). But what about how the prophet of the Lord rebuked him on the charge of “relying on the king of Syria and not Jehovah” (2 Chron. 16:7)? What about how, contrary to what was just and fair, he put the prophet in jail out of anger (v. 10), and when he was sick, he did not seek the Lord but physicians (v. 12)?

(4) When it says that Joshua “left nothing undone of all that the Lord had commanded Moses” (Josh. 11:15), the context shows that this should mostly be understood as referring to the destruction of the Canaanites and the distribution of the Promised Land. Nevertheless we do not deny that he did according to the Law of God with all his heart, even the moral Law, but he was unable to aspire to the highest degree of perfection, clean of every stain of sin.

** In Num. 11:27[–29] Moses clearly rebuked Joshua’s wrongful zeal. **

Here also belongs the example of King Hezekiah, which Bellarmine also cites toward the end of ch. 11. “He walked before God in truth and with a pure heart” (Isa. 38:3), that is, because he did not fake his piety but worshiped God truly and sincerely, acknowledging with a grateful heart that God “had cast all his sins behind His back” (v. 17). Because of these sins, all his bones were being broken (v. 13). What about how the prophet rebukes him for rashly flaunting his treasures to the messengers of the king of Babylon (Isa. 39:5ff.)?

(5) Justin speaks about the example of Zechariah and Elizabeth in the following way (QQ. et resp. ad orth., q. 141): “If Christ alone fulfilled God’s Law, then how did Zechariah and Elizabeth walk blameless in the Law?” Justin responds: “It is one thing to be blameless but another to be exempt from sin. For exemption from sin certainly is blamelessness, but blamelessness is not necessarily exemption from sin,” (etc.). “Christ alone is said to be without sin.” Augustine (De gratia Christi contra Pelagium, bk. 1, ch. 48):

It seems to me that this was said in reference to their good and laudable conduct among men, for no one could justly complain of it or incriminate it. It says Zechariah and Elizabeth had this conduct in the sight of God because they did not deceive men by any pretenses, but as they presented themselves to men, so were they known to the eyes of God. However, this was not said in reference to the perfection of righteousness in which we shall live truly and completely spotless and perfect. For even the apostle Paul said that he was blameless as regards the righteousness that comes from the Law. Zechariah, too, conducted himself without complaint in that Law. However, the apostle counted this righteousness as filth and loss when compared with the righteousness for which we hope and for which we should now hunger and thirst so that we may one day be satisfied in sight by that which is now in faith, since the righteous lives from faith.

** Augustine (De perfect. just.): “Not absurdly does it say that he walked blamelessly, not because he was already perfect but because he ran blamelessly toward that perfection, not having any damning sins and not forgetting to wash away his venial sins by almsgiving.” Again:

It is one thing to be without sin, which in this life is said only of the Only-Begotten. It is another thing to be blameless, which can be said about many righteous people in this life. This is a certain kind of good living about which no just complaint can be raised as regards human conduct.¹⁹ For who can justly complain about a man who wishes no one evil, who takes thought for everyone he can, who holds no desire for revenge against the injustices of anyone, so that he may truthfully say “as we forgive those who trespass against us”? Yet he shows that he himself is not without sin by the same word which Truth speaks: “Forgive, just as we have forgiven” [cf. Matt. 6:14].

Again: “Yet in Rev. [14:5] they are said to be [blameless] because ‘no lie was found in their mouth,’ for they did not say they had no sin. If they said that, they would be deceiving themselves, and the truth would not be in them [cf. 1 John 1:8]; and if the truth was not in them, then a lie would be found in their mouth. Now, if to avoid the envy of others they said they were not without sin though they were without sin, then this would be a lie; and so it would be untrue when it says ‘no lie was found in their mouth.’ Therefore they are blameless because just as they forgave, so they have been cleansed by God’s forgiving them.” Ibid. (regarding Zechariah and Elizabeth): “Surely they both, being just, had read in the commandments how to wash away their sins. For Zechariah also offered sacrifices for his own sins, as the Epistle to the Hebrews [5:1–3] says about every priest chosen from among men.” De peccat. merit. et remiss. (bk. 2, ch. 13):

In disputations on this question, Zechariah and Elizabeth are often cited against us. What shall we say except that Scripture clearly shows that Zechariah was of outstanding righteousness among the chief priests for offering the sacrifices of the Old Testament? However, we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Christ alone is the Chief Priest who, unlike those who used to be called chief priests, had no need to offer daily sacrifices for His own sins first before [He offered sacrifice] for the people. You see, in this number were Zechariah, Phineas, and Aaron himself, with whom the order began, as well as others who lived laudably and justly in that priesthood. Nevertheless these men needed first to sacrifice for their own sins, being figures of the one to come, Christ, the only undefiled priest who had no such need. Moreover, what praise was given to Zechariah and Elizabeth that is not included in that which the apostle declared about himself before he believed in Christ? For he said that he was “blameless according to the righteousness which is of the Law” [Phil. 3:6], and we read the same thing also about them: “They were both righteous before God” [Luke 1:6]. Therefore whatever righteousness they possessed was not pretended to men, which is why it says “before God.” **

In Letter 95, Augustine examines the fact that Zechariah was a priest. All the priests necessarily had to sacrifice first for their own sins, and then for the people according to the Law of God. Just as now through the sacrifice of prayer we are convicted of not being without sin since we have been commanded to say, “Forgive us our trespasses,” so also back then, through the sacrifices of animal victims, the priests would be convicted of not being without sin since they were commanded to offer sacrifice for their own sins. Therefore we claim that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous before God through faith in Christ and that they found forgiveness of sins through Him who was foreshadowed in their sacrifices. Zechariah celebrates Christ’s benefits in his canticle and clearly locates “the knowledge of salvation” in “the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 1:77). They manifested this righteousness of faith with their good works, seeing as they walked blamelessly in all God’s commandments. Their obedience was serious and sincere, not hypocritical. Before men they were ἄμεμπτoι [“blameless”], but before God they were sinners, even as a little later it recounts how Zechariah sinned by disbelief. They walked in all God’s Commandments with respect to [the perfection of ] parts, though they were not yet rendering perfect obedience with respect to [the perfection of] degrees.²⁰

(6) The apostle Paul admits clearly (Rom. 7:7) that he does not yet render perfect obedience to the law about not coveting because it is “spiritual,” but he is “carnal and sold under sin” (v. 14), that is, because “sin still dwells in his flesh” (v. 17). For this reason he declares himself ταλαίπωρoν [“wretched”] and longs to be “delivered from the body of this death” (v. 24). He everywhere commends the righteousness of faith, but he denies that we can stand before God’s judgment by the righteousness of works. 1 Cor. 4:4: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified.”

** Stapleton (Promt. Catholic. and [Promt.] moral., Domin. de nuptiis Cananaeis): “This is a passage for treating against heretics (from Mary’s words ‘whatever He tells you, do’ [John 2:5]) the complete and full keeping of all the commandments of Christ, according to that outstanding example of the blessed Virgin. For today they blasphemously claim that such keeping is impossible.” We respond. What is the logical sequence? The servants could fulfill the commands of Christ by drawing water; therefore we can most perfectly fulfill all God’s Commandments, even those which require the inner and perpetual perfection of the heart? **

The statements of the ancients.

§ 196. In ch. 12 Bellarmine produces statements of the fathers where they say that God has not commanded anything impossible of man.

We respond. In three respects, God’s Commandments are and are said to be possible for man:

(1) With respect to concreated wholeness. The doctrine of the Law was solemnly reiterated through Moses, yet it did not first begin with Moses but was instilled and engraved upon men’s minds at creation itself. Therefore in this sense and respect God did not command the impossible because He equipped the first people with the perfect and complete powers by which they could fulfill God’s Law, both general and specific, about not eating the fruit of the tree of life.

(2) They are possible with respect to divine grace. Jerome (Dial. adversus Pelag., bk. 2): “God’s Commandments are impossible for nature but possible for grace.” Augustine (De spiritu et lit., ch. 9): “The Law exposes the will as sick in order that grace may heal the will and the sound will may fulfill the Law, neither being put under the Law nor lacking the Law.” However, we must take this “grace” to mean not only the grace of renewal which confers on man the power to be obedient to the divine Law but also the grace of forgiveness which does not impute the stains of sin which still remain and which for Christ’s sake forgives whatever is not done or whatever is done too little. Augustine (Retract., bk. 1, 19): “All the Commandments of God are considered done when whatever is not done is forgiven.” Contra duas epist. Pelag. (bk. 3, ch. 7): “In this life, God’s grace grants the desire to keep the Commandments while at the same time forgiving whatever is not kept in those Commandments.” De civit. Dei (bk. 19, ch. 27): “Even our righteousness, though true in that it refers to the end goal of the true good, in this life is still such that it consists more in the forgiveness of sins than in the perfection of virtues.” Luther (Enarr. Psalm 51, vol. 4, Latin edition, f. 377b): “‘What?’ you will say. ‘Should the Decalogue not be kept? And if it is kept, is this not righteousness?’ I respond. We want people to obey and keep the Decalogue but with the large—that is, evangelical—dispensation or distinction, for we receive only the firstfruits of the Spirit while the groanings of the spirit remain in the heart.” Again: “Our flesh with its lusts and desires—that is, the entire tree with its fruits—still remains. This is the reason why the Decalogue cannot ever be fully kept,” etc. “We do the Law through the Holy Spirit, and yet the word ‘Have mercy!’ remains. That is, we continue to be sinners, and we need the free forgiveness of sins through Christ’s merit.”²¹

(3) They are possible with respect to the perfection awaited in the life to come. Augustine (De perfect. justit. contra Coelestium, resp. 16): “The commandment ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’ will be fulfilled in the fullness of love. For while some carnal covetousness still remains, even restrained by self-control, one does not love God in every way with all his soul,” etc. “Why, then, demand that perfection of man when no one can achieve it in this life? Because one cannot run rightly if he does not know whither to run. Moreover, how could one know without the Commandments showing the way?” De spiritu et lit. (ch. 36): “We shall fulfill the commandment of love in that life when we shall see face-to-face. But this has been commanded to us even now to show us what to ask for in faith, where we should set our hope, and that, forgetting what is past, we should especially apply ourselves to what is ahead of us.” In Contra Julian. (bk. 1, 2) he thus explains Basil’s statement that sin can easily be separated from man’s will so that it is pure in all things: “It is not easy for the human will but for the nature of God, and when he says ‘pure in all things,’ that will happen in the life to come, when God will be all in all.”

Bellarmine rehashes his old story that, even though man cannot live free of sin, he can still perfectly fulfill the Commandments since venial sins are not against but beyond the Law. We spoke earlier about what to think regarding this subterfuge [above, § 184; On Actual Sins (Commonplace XIII), §§ 90–101].

Lines of reasoning that support the perfect fulfillment of the Law: First, we can do more than the Law requires.

§ 197. In²² ch. 13 Bellarmine gives some lines of reasoning he uses to prove that we can render perfect obedience to the Law. (I) “Man can do more than the Law commands. Therefore all the more can he fulfill the commandment.”

We respond. The antecedent, taken from the argumentation of Pelagius, labors under an obvious falsity, as will be shown in our examination of works of supererogation [On the Gospel (Commonplace XVII), §§ 82–104].

Second, the impossible does not bind anyone.

(II) “If the Commandments were impossible, then they would not obligate anyone. Thus they would not be commandments, for it is unimaginable that one could commit sin in what cannot be avoided.”

We respond. One must distinguish between nature as it was instituted and nature as it has become destituted. God gave His Law to man in the state of innocence, when man’s powers were still sound and whole, but in the fall and by his own fault man fell into disability. God’s Law and justice does not become any less rigorous by this. Why should it? Are his obligation and workload removed if a debtor is reduced to the last line of poverty by his own fault? Of course not. Rather, the obligation to repay his creditor remains sound in its entirety. Moreover, if no one sins in what cannot be avoided, what shall we do about original sin? We see infants die, and “the wages of sin is death” [Rom. 6:23]. Therefore infants are surely guilty of sin though they cannot avoid it. Is this judgment of God unfair? No. In Anselm (Cur Deus homo, bk. 1, ch. 24), Boso poses the question: “If a man cannot repay his debt, how is he unjust in not repaying it?” Anselm replies to him as follows: “Maybe he could be excused to a certain extent if the cause of his inability was not in himself. But if the blame for his inability lies in himself, then that does not lighten the sin even as it does not excuse him from repaying what he owes. It is the same as if someone imposes a task on his servant and orders him not to fall into an inescapable pit, which he points out to the servant. [If he falls in], he will not thereby be free from blame.” Anselm (De conc. virgin., ch. 28): “God rightly demands of nature what He gave it and what is justly owed Him. If a man and his wife are exalted to an important position or possession without any merit on their part but by grace alone, and at the same time commit a serious and inexcusable crime, and if they are dismissed justly because of it and are forced into servitude, who will say that their children, who were born after their conviction, should not be subject to the same servitude?”

Third, God would be a very cruel tyrant.

§ 198. (III) “If the Law were impossible, it would follow that God is more cruel and more foolish than any tyrant, since He would be demanding even from His friends a tribute which no one could pay, and He would be passing laws that He knew no one could obey.”

We respond. (1) God’s Law applies to everyone, even the unreborn. Therefore if the logical connection of the argument is tenable, it will follow that either even the unreborn can fulfill the Law perfectly, since the Law was given to them no less than to the reborn, or that, with respect to the unreborn, God is a tyrant. However, Bellarmine could not concede either of these.

(2) God did not purposefully repeat His Law after the fall as if people could fulfill it perfectly and earn eternal life, but that “the knowledge of sin” might come from it (Rom. 3:20); that it might be our “tutor unto Christ” (Gal. 3:[24]); that it might be the norm of good works in which the reborn should walk always; etc.

(3) God does not only work death through the Law, but He also works life through the Gospel. He does not only reveal the illness through the word of the Law, but He also applies the medicine through the word of the Gospel. “He pours oil and wine into our wounds” (Luke 10:34). Augustine (De spiritu et lit., ch. 19): “The Law was given that people might ask for grace. Grace was given that the Law might be fulfilled. For the Law was not unfulfilled as by its own fault but by the fault of the prudence of the flesh. This fault had to be exposed through the Law and healed through grace.” Even if the doctrine of the Gospel—through which believers obtain the forgiveness of sins and renewal of spirit to start obeying God’s commands—had not been revealed to man after the fall by the immense mercy of God, still no one could dare call God to account for exacting His due through the Law from those who fell into poverty and the inability to repay the debt by their own fault.

** God has commanded the impossible: (1) To commend His own righteousness. (2) To illustrate the glory of Christ. (3) To humble us. (4) To teach us what sort of people we used to be, what we should be doing, and what sort of people we are going to be. (5) To confound hypocrites. **

Fourth, Christ suffered that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us.

§ 199. (IV) “Christ suffered ‘that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us’ (Rom. 8[:4]). He also taught us to pray: ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6[:10]), where we ask for the grace to fulfill the Commandments. Finally, ‘Christ became the cause of eternal salvation for all who obey Him’ (Heb. 5[:9]). However, if the Law cannot be fulfilled, then Christ did not obtain what He willed, our daily prayers are in vain, and no one can be saved. You see, if the Law cannot be fulfilled, then the righteousness of the Law is never fulfilled in us, nor is God’s will done on earth, nor do we ever really obey Christ.”

We respond. (1) It is truly the purpose of Christ’s sending and Passion that the justification (τὸ δικαίωμα) of the Law be fulfilled in us, seeing as the perfect fulfilling of the Law which Christ has done in our stead is imputed to us by faith. “Christ is the τέλoς (‘end purpose and fulfilling’) of the Law for everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). Therefore the apostle clearly notes that the righteousness of the Law is not accomplished by us, by our strength or works, but in us, that is, through imputation. The Spirit of renewal is indivisibly connected to this, and through Him the Law of God is written on our hearts so that “we no longer walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). All Scripture says that Christ died for our sins and because of our sins that we might have forgiveness of them through faith. It never says that Christ suffered for our good works so that He might gain for them such power and efficacy that they can stand before God’s judgment. Ambrose (commentary on Romans 8): “He says that sin has been condemned so that the righteousness of the Law, given by Moses, might be fulfilled in us. Now that we have been removed from the slavery of the Law, we have become its friends. Indeed, the justified are friends of the Law. But how is that justification fulfilled in us except when we receive the remission of all our sins?—with the result that the justified may stand and serve the Law of God with his mind, having his sins removed.”

(2) “The will of God” indeed “is our sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). However, this also is the will of God (John 6:40): “that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.” Therefore we ask for both: that we receive justification through faith in Christ and that our renewal and sanctification increase daily. Thus in the Lord’s Prayer itself we ask for the forgiveness of sins which we surely would not need if the will of God as revealed in the Law were perfectly fulfilled in us.

(3) Christ truly has become the αἴτιoς [“cause”] of eternal salvation for those who obey (Heb. 5:9). But note that we are said to obey Christ in two ways: (a) By true faith in Him. Rom. 1:5: εἰς ὑπακoὴν πίστεως [“for the obedience of faith”]. Rom. 15:18: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me for the obedience of the Gentiles.” By this obedience of faith we are righteous in God’s sight. Therefore in 1 Pet. 1:2 “sprinkling with Christ’s blood” is connected to obedience. (b) We are said to obey Christ in good works. Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.” Rom. 6:12: “Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies so that you obey its desires.” Verse 16: “You are slaves to the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience,” etc. This obedience of works is not yet in this life absolute and uncontaminated in every detail.

Fifth, the Law does not accuse the fruits of the Spirit.

§ 200. (V) “All who are truly justified have the Holy Spirit, who produces the fruits listed in Gal. 5[:22–23]. But now, whoever has these fruits is not accused by the Law since ‘against these there is no law’ [Gal. 5:23]. This is also what the apostle says in Rom. 8[:2]: ‘By the law of the Spirit of life we are freed from the law of sin and death.’”

We respond. (1) In this life we receive only “the firstfruits of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:23).

(2) The Holy Spirit performs His works “in the body of sin and death” (Rom. 7:24). Therefore we are being perfected with regard to the instrument and according to the measure of our weakness.

(3) Accordingly we need daily renewal (2 Cor. 4:16).

(4) Although we do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, we are still partly “carnal and sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14).

(5) Consequently, even though the substance (so to speak) of the fruits of the Spirit are not accused by the Law, the Law does accuse their quality, that is, their imperfection, as a sin which still dwells in the flesh of the reborn.

(6) The reborn are free from the accusation of the Law because they are in Christ through faith. Rom. 8:1: “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” not because of an inherent or actual righteousness of works that is perfectly congruent with the Law. Inherent righteousness of their own does not make the reborn free from the accusation of the Law; rather, the righteousness of Christ imputed [to them] through faith does this. Ambrose (in his commentary [on Romans]):

The law of the Spirit of life is also the law of faith. For the Law of Moses is also spiritual because it forbids sinning, but it is not the law of life because it cannot forgive sins for those who are guilty of death so as to make alive those who are going to die. However, because this [law] does not want people to sin and calls them back from death, it is called the law of the Spirit of life, consisting not of the letter but of the Spirit because “by the heart one believes” [Rom. 10:10], and it is the Spirit which is believed. And so this law frees the believer in Christ Jesus—that is, through faith in Christ—from the law of sin and death. It is the law of sin, he says, which dwells in his members, but the law of death is the Law of Moses because it brings death to sinners.

These are Ambrose’s words.

** Pererius (on Romans 2, disp. 17, no. 103, p. 361) puts together the following argument: “Circumcision has value if you keep the Law (Rom. 2:25); but now, circumcision was of value to Abraham and to the other Old Testament saints.” We respond. (1) The apostle’s statement is conditional and posits nothing. (2) The saints recognize that their works are imperfect and had perfect obedience in Christ. (3) Therefore the keeping of the Law which circumcision requires is neither the cause of salvation nor a mark that the Law has been perfectly fulfilled; rather, it is an indication of spiritual circumcision rightly used when connected with a spiritual circumcision of the heart. **

This sophism also belongs here: “Deut. 32:4: ‘The works of God are perfect.’ But the obedience of the reborn is the work of God. Therefore it is perfect.”

We respond. God works some things by Himself without means, and these surely are completely perfect. Yet some things He performs in and through the reborn who are not yet completely renewed in this life but are still partly established under the old flesh. In eternal life what God begins to do in this life through renewal will be perfectly and finally consummated. How else could it be? If all the works of God are immediately perfect, a seed would not give rise to a stem but to a perfect tree right away.

Sixth, the reborn are born of God.

§ 201. (VI) “All the justified are born of God, but he who is ‘born of God does not and cannot sin’ (1 John 3:9). He who does not sin fulfills the Law.” We respond. (1) It is one thing to sin, another to have sin. The reborn do not sin; that is, they do not indulge the desires of their flesh, nor do they allow sin to reign in their mortal body. Yet if they say they have no sin, they will be liars (1 John 1:8).

(2) Some sins are sins of ignorance and weakness, but some are sins of malice and sins against conscience. The reborn do not sin; that is, they do not indulge in crimes against conscience. However, they are not yet free of sins of ignorance and weakness. Prov. 24:16: “A righteous man falls seven times a day and rises again.” Ps. 19:12: “Who can discern his errors? Cleanse me from my hidden [faults].”

(3) The phrase “the reborn do not sin” must be understood with reduplication,²³ that is, according as they are reborn. At the same time, however, the reborn still wear the flesh in which sin dwells. Every day, every hour—nay, even every moment—it is driving them toward actual sins. If ever they serve its lusts and securely indulge them, they cease being in the number of the reborn until they are again truly converted to God. Rom. 8:13: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Augustine (on the Epistle of John, tractat. 5) argues: “The sin that the reborn man does not commit is the violation of love.”²⁴

** Augustine again (explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians): “It is one thing not to sin; it is another not to have sin. For he in whom sin does not reign—that is, who does not obey its desires—does not sin. However, that man in whom those desires do not exist not only does not sin but also does not even have sin. Even though this can happen in many respects in this life, one can only look for this to be accomplished in every part in the resurrection of the flesh and its changing.” **

The end purpose for contending that the Law cannot be fulfilled perfectly.

§ 202. Now, the end purpose of teaching that it is impossible to fulfill the Law is not to encourage or excuse carelessness, sloth, and intentional negligence.

** Becanus is thus inclined (De ecclesia, q. 3, concl. 2, no. 6): “Teaching that it is impossible to fulfill the Law conflicts with holiness and occasions sin. If the Ten Commandments really are impossible, then I am concerned about keeping them for no reason; then I avoid acts of theft, murder, and adultery in vain.” **

Rather, [the purpose of teaching that it is impossible to fulfill the Law] is so that: (1) We, confessing the powerlessness of our abilities and the imperfection of our own righteousness, may flee for refuge to Christ, “who has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having been made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). “Through [Him] God has done what was impossible for the Law” (Rom. 8:3), “that He might be the end of the Law for righteousness for all who believe” (Rom. 10:4). The glory of having perfect righteousness must be reserved for Christ alone, who is “holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). Those who ignore and reject His righteousness, “seeking to establish their own, are not under the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). Therefore the first use of this teaching lies in the article of justification, namely, that we not set before God’s judgment our imperfect and variously stained obedience to the Law but that we may learn that we are justified by faith in Christ.

(2) The second use of this teaching lies in the article on good works, that we may learn that by the natural powers of our own free choice we cannot begin the sincere and true obedience that we owe the Law, but the Law of God “must be written on our hearts” through the Holy Spirit (Jer. 31:33) so that we may begin to show not merely an external obedience but also an inner one with a spontaneous spirit and from the heart. On the other hand, because this inchoate obedience is still very far from the perfection the Law requires, we cannot boast about it before the judgment of God but are forced to confess that “all our righteousnesses are as menstrual rags” (Isa. 64:6) and that, “when we have done everything, we are still but unworthy servants” (Luke 17:10).

(3) Lastly, it serves to teach us that the inchoate obedience of the reborn is pleasing to God not because it satisfies the Law perfectly, but because it proceeds from faith in Christ. Through such faith its imperfection and remaining fault is covered.

1 Read discipulorum instead of apostolorum.

2 Decem praecepta Wittenbergensi praedicata populo (1518), WA 9:518.

3 The sensitive appetite is the faculty by which a sensing being desires what it perceives as good and avoids what it perceives as bad. The intellectual appetite, on the other hand, is the faculty by which a human being desires the good or avoids the bad that he has known by his intellect; it is always joined with freedom (Micraelius, Lexicon philosophicum, s.v. “appetitus”). The intellectual appetite is the same thing as the “will” (Scherzer, Vade mecum, part 1, s.v. “appetitus”; Thomas Aquinas, ST, 2.2., q. 18, a. 1; q. 58, a. 4; q. 1689, a. 2). “Those movements which occur in the lower appetite are with passion, while those in the higher appetite are without passion” (Thomas, ST, 2.2., q. 18, a. 1).

4 In the Ptolemaic worldview, the earth stood at the center of the universe and was surrounded by various levels of the heavens, called “orbs,” which were like embedded, rotating spheres. In On Creation and Angels (Commonplace VIII), § 18, Gerhard expresses his doubts about the veracity of this worldview. Later, Johannes Micraelius (Lexicon philosophicum, s.v. “Coelum”) noted that the most excellent authors of the seventeenth century denied that orbs are in the sky physically, but because they explain how the stars do not change position relative to one another, the term was retained and used hypothetically. (See also Micraelius, Lexicon philosophicum, s.v. “Orbis.”)

5 The vegetative power of the soul, possessed also by animals and plants, was thought to have three functions: nutrition, growth, and generation (Micraelius, s.v. “Vegetans facultas”).

6 I.e., the vegetative power of the soul (see previous note).

7 Read sed si with Cotta instead of sed.

8 I.e., that the whole actually stands for a part of the whole.

9 That which completes another thing or determines it or through which it operates, its “form.” A formal cause gives being to an effect by forming a material.

10 See above, p. 164 n. 65.

11 See Gerhard, On Interpreting Sacred Scripture (1610 Loci Theologici, Commonplace II), §§ 134–39.

12 Preface to the Old Testament (1529), WA DB 5:9–10 (cf. AE 35:245–46).

13 Preface to the Old Testament (1529), WA DB 5:9 (cf. AE 35:245).

14 Scholastic theologians distinguished between the Commandments, binding upon all Christians in order to obtain eternal life, and the “counsels of perfection” such as celibacy and poverty, upon which monastic life was based, which might be observed to “render the gaining of this end more assured and expeditious” (Thomas Aquinas, ST, 1.2., q. 108, art. 4).

15 I.e., a Christian in this earthly life, a member of the church militant.

16 I.e., in a certain respect.

17 Gerhard’s quotation left out a part of Augustine’s text, which we have restored here in brackets. Cf. PL 44:267.

18 I.e., general statements of Scripture that all people are sinners, etc.

19 Read conversatione with Cotta instead of conversione.

20 See above, § 194 (3), pp. 208–9.

21 Commentary on Psalm 51 (1532/1538), AE 12:320 (WA 40/2:340).

22 Preuss’s edition erroneously places double asterisks at the start of this paragraph. However, this section was in Gerhard’s first edition.

23 A reduplicative statement uses one of the following phrases: “insofar as, as, as such, in this sense,” and the like, because such words indicate the reason why the predicate should go with the subject. For example, the statement “Man, insofar as he is man, is rational” is reduplicative because it explains the reason why man is rational: because he is a man. (See Scherzer, Vade mecum, “Dist.,” no. 63, pp. 375–76.)

24 Cf. Ap IV 219.

↑ Back to top