De natura et gratia libri III, cum Apologia contra Catharinum

This therefore being first established — that the just man is not forthwith freed from the bond of the law so as to judge whether he can fully satisfy the law, which is the principal intention in the first part of this book — a brief discourse must be premised on the explanation of the law: concerning which, indeed, not even the adversaries agree with us at all. And in the first place this holy confession is to be supposed among Christians, that Christ¹ was given by God to men not only as redeemer, to whom we must trust, but also as legislator, whom we must obey, as the Synod of Trent, can. 21, sanctioned against certain impious men who denied that he was a legislator. And indeed, as far as the matter regards the ten commandments, although they are all of the law of nature, and were explained in the old law, nevertheless in the evangelical law they have the obligation of divine law, because they were commanded by Christ. For the old law, simply as regards the obligation of that law, was altogether abolished and extinguished in the very moment of the passion when Christ said, It is consummated. For, the priesthood being transferred,² says Paul, it is necessary that a translation of the law be made. Where he teaches without any exception that the whole law expired as to its force of obliging. But that axiom of the theologians,³ that of the ancient commandments the ceremonial ones are antiquated and abolished, but the judicial ones not all, while all the moral ones remained, is to be understood thus: that the first, because they were figures of Christ to come, it is not lawful any longer to command in the new law, lest they be false signs. But the second can lawfully be integrated; but the third, because they were of the law of nature, it was necessary that they be restored anew. And so the Decalogue, beyond the natural obligation, would have had no divine obligation at all in the Gospel on account of the bond of the ancient law (which ceased entirely, as if it had never been), unless it had been commanded anew by Christ as true legislator and expounder of the law of nature. Whence, as true legislator, by explaining many things he commanded and commended things pertaining to the same law which the world then did not know. As:⁴ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, and blessed are they that mourn — whether these are counsels or at some time commandments, we do not now dispute. Nor did he lay down laws only as a scribe and interpreter of the law like the Pharisees, but as one having power: You have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not kill, but I say to you,⁵ Whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, etc. You have heard that it was said to them of old, Thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say to you, Whoever shall look on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart. But besides these natural things he also added commandments of the sacraments:⁶ as, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: and, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you: and,⁷ Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish. Nor is it only true, however the adversaries may resist, that he gave the Church the faculty of making laws,⁸ which should be as it were the bulwark of her own, with which she hedged her vineyard — not that he himself lacked prudence perfectly to institute the whole law of the Church, but because he knew that the variety of times and places, and the diverse cases of men, need new laws from time to time. But this is not the place to treat these things more pressingly; but we have remembered them to explain the canon of the Council, which at this time was necessary on account of certain persons.⁹

With this consideration premised, there are two points on which the Lutherans disagree with us, necessary to be understood before the disputation concerning satisfaction of the law. The first concerns the explanation of the commandments: and the second, whether besides the commandments there are any counsels. On the first point, therefore, they say (as is to be seen in Melanchthon¹⁰ in the common place on good works, and in Bucer¹¹ in the book On the Concord of Controversies) that we hand down the doctrine of works brilliantly concerning external hypocrisy, or concerning human ceremonies: but the works of the first table, and the fountain of good works, we ignore and overwhelm. And they call the seven commandments of the second table external hypocrisy.¹² For they distinguish hypocrisy from the commandments of the first table, which they call internal justice. But internal justice is, they say, to believe the word of God, to fear God, to trust God, always to establish confidence, lest doubt prevail that we are in the grace of God. Which doubt either despises God, or flees from him as angry, or does not truly invoke him. Behold the mysteries in which these men place the whole Christian life, persuading that all these external things matter either nothing or very little: but that the whole business of a Christian consists within, in the heart. Nor indeed can they sufficiently wash away that color with which they were dyed by their master in the book On Christian Liberty,¹³ where he says that external works profit nothing: namely, to be occupied in sacred places and offices, to fast, not even to pray with the voice, nay not even interior speculations or meditations, beyond one faith and confidence. In the first place, who does not see that they speak unworthily of the commandments of the second table,¹⁴ nay rather that they think unworthily of them? For they think that in this only they are commanded to us, that God wished us to exercise them as testimonies of faith by which we might glorify him. But the Catholic Church distinguishes by a far different reason between the first and second table of the commandments. For they are not distinguished as external works from internal: for both in the first and in the second table both inward and outward works are commanded. But the difference is that, since God¹⁵ is both best in himself and to be worshipped for himself, and is also the author of nature and begetter of things, who has care and providence of us, he placed the sum of all the commandments in two: namely,¹⁶ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, etc., and thy neighbor as thyself. From which commandments he says that the whole law and the prophets hang. But the first, which pertains to his own worship, he commanded to be explained in the first table in three precepts: but the second, in the other, in seven others. Nor are the precepts of the first table only meditations of the mind, but they also exert themselves in works. For the first commandment¹⁷ is not formally of love, but its explanation: namely, to believe God to be one and three, to execrate idols as false gods, in which there is nothing of divinity: that he is the one to whom alone the praise and worship of heart, mouth and work is due. The second commandment also, concerning the sanctification of the Sabbath, is placed not only within in the mind, but also in external worship, and so the third concerning his holy name, not to usurp it in vain oaths. Wherefore it is a new invention that it is commanded in the first table that we believe the word of God, trust, and always establish confidence, lest doubt prevail whether we have obtained the promises of God. Concerning which more broadly in book 3, On the Certainty of Grace. But as in the first table external works are also commanded, so also in the second table are inward works. For we are commanded not only to honor dear parents with external offices of piety, but also with intimate affection. Nor are we only commanded to abstain from another's property or bed, but not to covet the wife or property of a neighbor. Therefore (as we shall propose at the beginning) he both falsely and unworthily calls the works of the second table hypocrisy.¹⁸ For hypocrisy is when one thing is brought forth outwardly in the work, and another is borne within in the heart: but the works and offices of charity toward neighbors proceed from faith and the love of God. Nay, according to Scripture, they are indications of true love of God.¹⁹ Whence Paul says: Render to all their dues: to whom tribute, tribute, etc. For he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.²⁰ And John, whom the Lord from his own breast had suckled with the precepts of charity, thus recounts what he had drawn from there: Dearly beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No man has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and his charity is perfected in us: And, He who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see? And, This commandment we have from God, that he who loves God love also his brother. This is John's exposition of that new commandment of Christ, than which he wished nothing more commended and more holy to his disciples, namely, that they love one another as they were loved by him. Whence he concludes that there is no more certain indication of divine love than the love of neighbor. Wherefore Paul did not think it enough to explain the unity of the human race from the natural bond of the flesh, by which we are compacted into one body. But, he says, we have all been baptized by one Spirit into one body.²¹ And elsewhere:²² We are members of his body (namely, of Christ), of his flesh and of his bones. In sum, God esteemed these external works, by which we cultivate charity among brothers, so highly that, although he himself was rich in all good things and did not need ours, he so properly put on the person of each one that he did not think it enough to say, What you did to one of these, you did for me, but, you did to me.²³ And on the last day he foretold that the whole judgment would turn on whether, when he was naked, he was clothed by us, whether finally he was fed in his brothers and treated with charity. With what face, therefore, do the Protestants call the works of the second table hypocrisy? Saying that the whole Christian business is to be carried on in the heart with God alone. For we acknowledge the word of Christ our liberator: The kingdom of God is within you,²⁴ since, as Paul says, our law is the law of the Spirit — but nevertheless it is spiritual in the way he explains elsewhere, that the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit: but justice, peace and spiritual joy are not preserved except through exterior acts.²⁵

The second disagreement of these men with us concerning the law of Christ is that they recognize no counsel in the Gospel which is not a commandment: if not a particular one, at least included in the commandment of loving God above all things.²⁶ From which, as we shall see in the following chapter, they draw one argument to confirm that we cannot satisfy this commandment in this life. For whatever a man does, he still owes more. And for that reason, as we shall see in the chapter on satisfaction, they laugh at us for thinking not only that we can satisfy the law, but that we can supererogate something beyond it. Wherefore when in the imperial little book,²⁷ at the urging of Eck, it had been written that works are indeed done by us which are good, which are commanded and commended by God, afterwards Bucer²⁸ near the end of his book On the Concord of Controversies protested that it would have been enough to say "commandments." Because, he says, there is nothing in the Gospel which does not proceed from the commandment of love: but the other works which are done from human institutions they utterly condemn, as is clear in their syllabus, on which article the men of Cologne have excellently met them in their antididagma. But concerning this article of counsels I shall say what pertains to the present proposal concerning satisfaction of the law, especially because we have heard certain among Catholics doubting about this, nay rather contending that there is no work of supererogation or counsel, but that all things are commandments. Even that:²⁹ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, etc. Therefore we must establish the contrary conclusion.³⁰ The reason by which the sacred testimonies of this truth are most especially elucidated is this. God in works toward neighbors commanded us under precept only those things which pertained to the custody of charity: for the end of the commandment is charity:³¹ but the other offices, there was no reason why he should enjoin them on us of necessity: but in those which pertain to his worship he did not measure our obligation by the greatness of the benefits which he had conferred on us, of creation and redemption, but disposed all things sweetly according to our nature: commanding only those things which would preserve his friendship, and which were possible, and not so difficult, not only for these or those conditions of men, or in this or that place or time, but which were possible for all at any time and place: but the rest he placed in each one's option. Wherefore counsels are not in themselves more perfect than the works of the commandments, but since the end of all the commandments is the perfection of charity, counsels are ordered to their greater custody. Wherefore although they are not necessary, nevertheless in this way they pertain to perfection. Whence Christ, in that solemn promulgation of the law, immediately before the necessary commandments proposed the counsels of the perfect: Blessed are the poor in spirit.³² For poverty is not necessary, but the lawful use of goods is good. Blessed are they that mourn: and the like. And therefore he adds: You are the light of the world: as if it belongs to them not only to cultivate justice in the common way, but excellently to cast away even the lawful use of things. And from this perhaps is drawn the legitimate understanding of those words: Whoever shall break one of these least commandments, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whoever shall do and teach, shall be called great. For it is doubtful how he called the commandments least, yet called him who kept them great. He was therefore perhaps speaking of those works of counsel, which are called least for this reason, that they are not necessary, but yet those who have legitimately kept them — namely, for the greater and more consummate custody of the commandments — will be in the kingdom of heaven not just any citizens, but great ones. There is added also the word of Christ: There are³³ eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He who can receive it, let him receive it. Of which Paul acts as expositor, where he says: It is good³⁴ for a man not to touch a woman, and, I would that all men were as I myself am. And, I say to the unmarried and widows: it is good for them if they remain as I also am: but he adds: Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, etc. But these things are common. But I shall press the matter a little more exactly from that place where the Lord is read to have answered the young man³⁵ asking what he should do to possess eternal life: Keep the commandments: and when he at once said that he had kept them from his youth, he added: Go, and sell all that thou hast, etc. For that is the place where most perspicuously is distinguished between the common order³⁶ of commandments and the singular acceptance of counsels. But the adversaries strive in two ways to interpret or³⁷ deprave this place. For first they say that that young man was a Pharisee who lied that he kept the commandments, and therefore was ordered to leave his riches, which were an impediment to him. To which Jerome³⁸ and Origen seem to incline: but indeed by no reason can it be denied that he had kept the law, as far as was enough for the friendship of God. For it is held in Mar. 10 that Christ, looking on him, loved him. Likewise because if he had lied, Christ would not have answered, If thou wilt be perfect, or as it is held in Mark, One thing is lacking to thee: for these words suppose that the young man had already done what Christ had said was necessary for eternal life. This perhaps is true, that he did not keep the commandment of love in the most perfect way, by distributing his goods to the poor, so as to be among the perfect. And that perhaps was the mind of Jerome and Origen, as St. Thomas relates, 2.2 q.189 ar.1. For it is most repugnant to Christian perfection³⁹ that he should be as rich as he is believed to have been, when there were flocks of the poor to whom he could have distributed his goods. But whether he lied or not, I do not care. For whichever side is true, the difference of counsels from commandments is manifestly gathered from the letter. Therefore the answer of others is that it is necessary for salvation not only⁴⁰ to keep the other commandments, but to leave all things. Wherefore when Christ said, If thou wilt be perfect, he was not speaking of the perfection of supererogation, which is none, but of that which is necessary for salvation. Because, as is related in Mark and Luke, he said: One thing is lacking to thee, go, sell whatever thou hast, etc. But this interpretation is detected as false from this, that if he had understood it of such necessary perfection, he would have answered at the very beginning of the interrogation that it was necessary, when the young man asked what he should do to possess eternal life. Since therefore he says distinctly, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. But if thou wilt be perfect, sell, etc., he manifestly distinguished between necessary works and works of counsel. Whence what he adds, One thing is lacking to thee, is understood both for perfection and for the security of perseverance. For it is difficult for the rich to act perseveringly for eternal life, as Christ immediately added. In sum, to say that the works of counsel, and especially to renounce riches and the illustrious states of the world, is of the necessity of salvation, is a heresy condemned⁴¹ against the Pelagians, as Augustine relates in the epistle to Paulinus, where among ten errors he counts that as the fifth: namely, that baptized rich men, unless they renounce all things, if they seem to do any good, it is not reckoned to them, nor can they have the kingdom of God. Nor indeed would there have been need of any other condemnation, since otherwise the whole Christian religion would be condemned, which permits rich men. Whence Paul, although he made us admonished⁴² that those who wish to become rich fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil, nevertheless adds nothing more than: Command the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to hope in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, to do good, to give easily, etc.