EXPLICATIO ALIQUORUM PASSUUM DIFFICILIUM APOSTOLI

665AIf the things that are said about the law by the Apostle in various places are compared with one another, much contradiction seems to be in them. For he seems to be contrary 665Bto himself, contrary to reason, contrary to truth, and — what is greater than all these — contrary to the judgment of the Lord himself. Hear him then crying out and protesting: That by the works of the law no man shall be justified (Rom. III). How is he not in this contrary to himself, when he himself protests elsewhere that: Not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. II). Again in another place: The law, he says, is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good (Rom. VII). Again elsewhere it is said by the same man: The law worketh wrath (Rom. IV). What seems more against reason than that a commandment which is called holy, just and good should, with a just and merciful Lord, work wrath rather than grace? But elsewhere he says that: The law leads no one 665Cto perfection (Hebr. VII). How, I ask, could this be truly said, or how was he in this not contrary to the truth, since the time of the law had so many just men, and men so perfect? Was Elijah not perfect, in whose spirit and power, according to the Lord's testimony, there came he than whom none greater has arisen among those born of women? (Matth. XI.) What shall we say of the other prophets, what of the just men and the kings, who wished to see what the apostles saw, and could not? If they were transgressors of the law, could they be just? If they were observers of it, were they not just thereby? But he seems to hold what is contrary to the judgment of the Lord in that he says elsewhere: For if a law had been given which could justify, truly justice would be from the law (Galat. III). But to the lawyer 665Dasking what he should do to possess eternal life, and, at the Lord's questioning, putting forth to the Lord the first and greatest commandments of the law, the Lord answered: Do this, and thou shalt live (Luc. X). What then? Can justice not be obtained from that whence eternal life is obtained? Or can eternal life be had without justice? Who would say either of these, or presume to say it? Do this, he says, and thou shalt live. Thou shalt live, without doubt, by loving thy God with the whole heart, with the whole soul, with the whole mind, and thy neighbor as thyself. There are those who say that the works of the law are those that are done out of fear, but the works of the Gospel those that are done out of love. And to serve without love cannot justify a man. Whence also, according to them, it is rightly said that by the works of the law no man justicabitur. And in testimony 666Aof their assertion they bring forward what they read elsewhere in the Apostle: For you have not received again the spirit of bondage in fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption, wherein 666Bwe cry: Abba (Father ) (Rom. VIII). It is agreed then, they say, that those served under fear who had received the spirit of fear, not of love. Hence it is that they further add that the law is a commandment without grace, but the Gospel a commandment with grace. I confess, I do not recall having read where the law enjoins that one serve out of fear alone, where it forbids that the commandments be fulfilled out of true love. Shall the works, I ask, which the law itself enjoins not be works of the law, while the works it does not deliver shall be its works? But they say that those who were under the law received the spirit of bondage. I say boldly, and affirm without hesitation, that of those who lived in the time of the law and of those who have lived in the time of the Gospel until now, some received the spirit of fear, but others the spirit of love. 666CDid those alone not keep the law who, with charity abounding and casting fear out of doors, observed it out of love alone? It belongs certainly to the law, and to the Gospel, to set forth teaching; but to the Lord, to give grace or to withdraw it, and to pour in the spirit according to his good pleasure. What then do they mean who say that the law is a commandment without grace, but the Gospel a commandment with grace? How often do we see in our own times that unskilled hearers have greater grace in carrying out the commandments than certain most skilled preachers of the Gospel! Is it not the Gospel that they teach who most learnedly preach the apostolic doctrine, and yet neither have themselves the grace of fulfilling it nor are able to give it to others? Were those men of old living without the law who had received the teaching of the law together 666Dwith grace?

There are likewise those who say that those alone are rightly called works of the law which were begun with the law and ended with the law. But I say meanwhile what I think, and answer these things with a brief succinctness. Those works of the law which were begun with the law and ended with the law either justified when fulfilled, or they did not. If therefore their fulfillment could justify, how will it be true that no one shall be justified by the works of the law? There are perhaps those who say — and if they do not say it, they could not unfittingly have said it — that a distinction ought rightly to be drawn between natural, legal and evangelical works. For rightly are those works to be ascribed especially to the Gospel which received their institution from the Gospel, such as regeneration, confirmation and the communion of the Lord's body 667Aand blood, and the new institution of whatever else. But those alone are to be called legal in a certain special way which, as has already been said, were begun with the law and ended with the law. And those ought rightly to be called natural which could have been understood by men through the natural law, even if the law and the Gospel had never been instituted. According to this distinction, at all events, someone will perhaps say that by the works of the law we ought to understand those legal institutions alone of which we hold for certain that by their fulfillment alone no flesh shall be justified. But by the name of the law, as it will perhaps seem to someone, we must understand both natural decrees and legal institutions, inasmuch as both are written in the law. For the Apostle says that the doers of the law, not the doers 667Bof legal works, are justified. But what he affirms of the law, he denies of the works of the law. By the works of the law, he says, no man shall be justified. He does not say from the law, but from the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. And likewise in another place: We account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law (Rom. III). There he says that a man cannot be justified by the works of the law. Here he says how far he can be justified without the works of the law. If anyone thinks that the Apostle meant it thus, I ask that he answer me upon this: whether the Apostle says this of the present state, or rather of the former state? If he said this of the time of the former state, the text of that discourse will seem to be at odds with the testimony of the law and the prophets. Did not the law cry out daily that a sinner, and one repenting, should according to the manner and 667Cthe magnitude of the sin offer this or that, now for a sin, now for a trespass, and it shall be forgiven him, it says, and the Lord will be merciful to him (Num. XXX)? How, I ask, is a man not justified by that whereby his sin is remitted to him and the Lord is made merciful? But if he wished what he said of the works of the law to be understood of the state of this present time, what great thing, I ask, did he say? For if we still sacrifice animals, without doubt we either judaize, or after the manner of the nations we put forward the rites of idolatry. And so I say concerning these men what the Apostle says of the sacrament of circumcision: that if we still persist in sacrifices and the other ceremonies of the law, Christ will profit us nothing. But do you wish to know more plainly what I say? Certainly the things which were immolated in the law for the expiation 667Dof sin were sacrificed as a figure of things to come. For they prefigured the passion and death of Christ that was to come for the redemption of sins, and by that very fact they had the power of expiation and sanctification. If therefore we still sacrifice in a figure of things to come, we serve falsehood and not truth. For, Christ rising again from the dead dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him (I Cor. XV). If we sacrifice apart from the figure of our redemption, we put forward, as has been said, the form of idolatry, and in that very act we set the sacrifices of animals beside Christ, and (what is more wicked!) prefer them to him. For if we offer those alone, the divine sacrifice being despised, we without doubt prefer them to Christ. If we offer them together with the divine victim (as though seeking salvation from both), 668Awe without doubt set them beside Christ, and judge the victim of Christ to be as it were less than sufficient. What great thing therefore is it for the Apostle to say that no one shall be justified by legal works, when by the practice of them anyone will be reproved rather than justified?

But to these things perhaps you answer, and say: On account of certain legiszelatores, whom he desired to win rather than to scandalize, he spoke indeed more sparingly, but nevertheless he spoke true things. For as regards the present state, legal institutions defile rather than sanctify. But as regards the former state, without the natural decrees the legal enactments alone were not able to suffice for men's salvation. Hence it is that he does not say from the law, but exoperibus of the law shall no 668Bflesh be justified. And again: For we account that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Without the works of the law, he says, not without the law — wishing under the name of works to understand the legal enactments alone, and under the name of the law both the legal and the natural, inasmuch as it contained these and those. Hence it is that he says that the doers of the law shall be justified. For what can be holier, what juster, what finally more perfect, than to love God with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind, and one's neighbor as oneself? The law therefore could confer justice, and not any sort whatever, but full and perfect. To these things I myself briefly reply and say: If the Apostle so thought, that the law could confer perfect justice, why does he say elsewhere that the law brought no one to perfection? If justice is conferred from the law, 668Chow does it work wrath? Does it work wrath by conferring justice, and can it confer justice by working wrath? As far as it seems to me, whoever wishes to understand the apostolic sense will have to seek an exposition other than those aforesaid. As far as it seems to me, in all these matters those questions have not yet perished in which, as Augustine writes, the text of the apostolic discourse once seemed to him to be at odds with the testimonies of the law and the prophets. For he who says that a man cannot be justified by legal works — does he not seem to be at odds with Moses writing, nay rather with the Lord commanding: Let the man who has come to know his sin offer this or that, and it shall be forgiven him, and the Lord will be merciful to him.

668DYour importunate request compels me to say what I think about the matters that have been set forth, and I confidently hope that where John seeks, grace will not be wanting, both for thinking truly and for setting it forth usefully. It is not our custom, most of all in great and very deep matters, to presume anything out of our own understanding, or as it were to establish or affirm anything on our own authority. And so, so far as the Lord shall grant, let us draw out from the testimonies of Holy Scripture itself that whereby we may be able to loose the knots of our doubt. But this is most certain, and no one can doubt it: that the law was either such as could justify when fulfilled, or such as could not justify even when fulfilled. But if it could not justify when fulfilled, in no way would the Apostle say 669Athat the doers of the law would be justified. To the same judgment runs what the Lord said to the lawyer concerning the two greatest commandments: Do this and thou shalt live. See how a sure authority proves that the law, when fulfilled, justifies. Again I say that the law was either such as could be fulfilled by those to whom it was given, or such as could not be fulfilled by them. But let us prove this very thing that we are seeking, again by apostolic testimony: What was impossible, he says, to the law, in that it was weakened by the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the justice of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit (Rom. VIII). You weigh, as I judge, from these things how impossible it was for the law to justify, and how necessary it was for us 669Bto have such a remedy — that God should send his own Son, that the Son of God should empty himself, and come in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemn sin of sin, so that at least in this way the justice of the law might be fulfilled in us. But was everything that belonged to the law also impossible? By no means, but in that part in which the law was weakened by the flesh. Do you wish to hear this too, how it was weakened by the flesh: The flesh, he says, lusteth against the spirit (Galat. V); and elsewhere: I know that there dwelleth not in me (that is, in my flesh) good. For to will is present with me, but to accomplish the good I find not (Rom. VII). If therefore we diligently examine the testimonies brought forward, we shall find beyond doubt that certain precepts of the law were such as justified when fulfilled; but certain others, though fulfilled, in no way 669Cjustified. Nonetheless certain of them were such as could be fulfilled, and certain others such as without doubt could not be fulfilled. But those that could be fulfilled without doubt could not justify, and conversely those that could justify could not be fulfilled. Rightly therefore does the Apostle cry out: That by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. If no flesh, then no man, inasmuch as every man is flesh; because he is carnal, sold under sin. How, I ask, can one who has been made flesh and become carnal be justified, either from what he can do and which cannot justify, or from what can justify and which he cannot do? For the law teaches what a man ought to do, but it does not equally teach how he may be able to fulfill 669Dwhat is commanded. From the law alone, therefore, there is knowledge alone, and not fulfillment as well. Hence it is that, when the Apostle has first set down that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he at once adds and joins to it: For by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. III). See, you have both what is not from the law, and what is from the law. By the law the knowledge of sin — would that there were the abolition of it too. For if abolition, then without doubt justification too. And so I say: If no one is justified from the law, then he is justified from elsewhere. For who would dare to say that no one is or has been just? Hear what the Lord says to the apostles: Many just men and prophets have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them (Luc. X). If just, then certainly justified as well. For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace (Rom. III). For he it is who justifieth 670Athe circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith (ibid). See, from these things it is plainly known whence a man is justified. Without doubt through faith, and not through the law. For the justice of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ (ibid.). See, you plainly have it that justice is from faith.

But it remains to be asked whether it is always from faith alone, or sometimes from faith alone without works, and sometimes from faith together with works. Let us seek, if you please, upon this very point the testimony of the Apostle himself: We account, he says, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. See, again you plainly have it that a man can sometimes be justified from faith alone apart from the work of the law. But is it always from faith alone, and without every work of the law? By no means. For if he has time for working, faith without works is dead 670B(Jac. II). For not the hearers of the law, but the doers shall be justified. Without doubt, so long as time for working is granted to a man, there is required of him by God, and not undeservedly, a faith that works through love. From the testimonies brought forward, therefore, it is plainly gathered that a man is indeed justified sometimes from faith alone, sometimes from faith together with the work of the law, but never from the law alone. From these things, therefore, as I judge, it can be weighed that the Apostle is not contrary to himself in his sayings. For in that he says in one place that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, he plainly gives us to understand that for human diligence the teaching of the law alone, without the faith of Christ and grace, does not at all suffice: By the grace, he says, of God I am in what I am (I Cor. XV). But again, lest the law 670Cbe thought to be such that it cannot justify when fulfilled, therefore he says of the same law in another place: For not the hearers, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For whether it be granted or not granted that to any man such grace has been given, or is to be given, that he can fulfill it, nonetheless it is true that the fulfilling of it is the justification of men. The Apostle therefore teaches that the law by itself alone never confers justice upon a man, nay — what is heavier still — that it also works wrath. But whence this comes about the Apostle himself makes plain by adding: For where there is no law, neither is there transgression (Rom. IV). For it works wrath from this, that from the teaching of the law alone, without grace joined to it, the hearers of the law are made not so much doers as transgressors. 670DFor, lest the commandments of the law should be thought foolish rather than impossible, therefore it is said by the Apostle in another place: The law indeed is holy and the commandment holy, and just and good. Perhaps you think this was said of the moral commandments alone. I boldly say it of any institution whatever of the law, that in its own time it was holy, and just and good, as being instituted by God, and divinely enjoined upon man.

What, I ask, were the sacrifices, if not a figure of the passion and death of Christ, and by that very fact sacraments of the same? There was therefore in one and the same work both a figure of our redemption and a due obedience. Certainly, if Abraham had wished to slay his son without a divine precept, it would have been the utmost impiety and a horrible outrage. If therefore it was holy, and just, and dutiful 671Ato sacrifice his son at the Lord's command, why should it not in the same way be called holy, and just, and good to offer and immolate to the Lord, at the Lord's command, a beast that can be killed without sin? That the law therefore worked wrath came not from the law's imperfection or disorder, but from man's weakness and imperfection. Do you wish to hear this very thing not from me, but from the Apostle himself: We know, he says, that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do (Rom. VII). See, now you have whence transgression comes; see, now you hold that it is not from a fault of the law, but of man. Nothing therefore is said against reason in that he cries out that the holy and just commandment works wrath. 671BAccording to the Lord's testimony it is true, nor can we deny, that before the coming of Christ there were many just men and prophets; nevertheless what the Apostle said was not contrary to the truth, that the law brought no one to perfection. For that they were just, and whatever of perfection they were able to have, this was conferred on them not by the bare teaching of the law, but by divine grace joined to it. For it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. IX). For they were by no means justified without the faith and grace of Christ. For unless they believed and hoped that Christ would come, in no way would they have desired his coming for so long a time. For what else does it mean that the Lord says to the apostles: Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things that 671Cyou see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them? (Luc. X.) Their justification, therefore, is ascribed not so much to the law as to the faith and grace of Christ. Now let us consider this, how what the Apostle thinks of the law is not contrary to the Lord's judgment when he says: For if a law had been given which could justify, truly justice would be from the law. You see that, according to the Apostle, the law can neither give life nor justify; but why is this, if not because it cannot be fulfilled? For a man cannot refrain from coveting, just as he cannot love with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind — than which nevertheless nothing is holier, nothing at all is juster. Certainly, if such a law had been given to men ignorant but sound, and strong for accomplishing it, it could without doubt have both justified those willing to obey and by that very fact sanctified 671Dthem. But it was given, for certain, to the weak, and to the very unskilled, and to those less fit for fulfilling it. Likewise, if it taught the ignorant what they ought to do, and the weak in like manner how they could accomplish what was commanded, without doubt — as must be confessed — it could have both justified and given life. But the law teaches only what ought to be done, and does not teach how it can be fulfilled by the weak. But the Apostle denies that from knowledge alone, or the teaching, of what is to be accomplished; he denies, I say, and rightly, that a man cannot be given life. But what the Apostle denies of the knowledge of the commandment alone, the Lord affirms of the fulfilling of the commandment: Do this, he says, and thou shalt live. He does not say, if thou knowest this, thou shalt live; but, do this, and thou shalt live. What therefore the Lord affirms, the Apostle does not deny; and what the Apostle 672Adenies, the Lord does not affirm. For, as has been said, the Apostle speaks of the knowledge of the commandment alone, but the Lord of the fulfilling of it.

Here it is not undeservedly asked by what reasoning it is imputed to them, or how it works wrath in them, that they did not fulfill the law who could not fulfill it; or what it profited them to have received such a law as they could in no way fulfill. Certainly, and not undeservedly, they ought to receive such a law who presumed everything upon their own strength and not upon divine help, according to what they confidently said to Moses: All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do (Exod. XXIV). What seems right to you concerning those who, after so great and so steadfast a promise, utterly neglected it? Can so great a negligence excuse them? Or 672Bthose who, pressing on strongly but failing through their own defect and through manifold experience, could not be humbled — can so great a pride excuse them? Or those, I ask, who through much experience acknowledged their own weakness, but were slothful in obtaining the grace that helps — can so great a sloth excuse them? Who would say this, or dare to say it? From these things, therefore, you can easily weigh how inexcusable the transgressors of the law they received are. For those indeed who, striving according to their strength and failing now through their own defect, now through another's, acknowledged their own weakness and impossibility, and thereafter placed their whole hope in divine help, deserved to be justified, 672Cgrace having been obtained and received from God. The law that was given, therefore, profited some, and to others profited nothing at all. It certainly profited those living well, but harmed those using it ill. But where it harmed, it was not a fault of the law, but a fault of the one abusing it. For to this end the law had been given, which ought to have been fulfilled and could not be fulfilled: that those striving and failing might understand how vainly they presumed upon their own strength for what they could not fulfill without divine grace.

Perhaps you still press on, and say that whatever has been said of the law can also be said of the Gospel. For as the teaching of the law does not suffice for justice without divine grace, so without doubt neither does evangelical teaching without divine grace; neither can be fulfilled, neither can justify. Why then should not what is said of the law be said of the Gospel, that by the works 672Dof the Gospel no flesh shall be justified? Does not that also bring no one to perfection, of which it is agreed that it cannot be fulfilled without grace? By the same consideration we can reckon that it cannot at all give life to anyone, just as it cannot justify. But to these things I reply and say that the teaching of the law is single, the evangelical threefold. For the Gospel teaches what ought to be done, how it can be fulfilled, and how what has not been fulfilled can be made good. But the law teaches only, as has been said, what a man ought to do, and does not add how he can fulfill it, and for that reason it can justify no one. But evangelical teaching, that it may be perfect in every respect, teaches those three things already named. What you ought to do you are taught when you hear from the Lord: 673AThis is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you (Joan. XVIII). But lest anyone presume the same upon his own strength, he is taught by the same master, when it is said elsewhere by the same: Without me you can do nothing. As the branch cannot bear fruit unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me (Joan. XV). In obtaining grace, therefore, whereby we may be able to fulfill what we will — what, I ask, will be the manner of obtaining it? If you shall ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you (Joan. XIV). If you lack grace, ask as you ought, and you shall receive. But how do we ask in his name if we believe in him? This is what he wished to teach you, when he says: You believe in God, believe also in me (ibid.). Let him therefore who cannot fulfill what he ought believe in Christ, 673Band in Christ ask the Father who can do all things. Let him then ask for that Spirit who works in us to will and to accomplish according to good will; that Spirit, I say, who works all things in all, dividing to every one according as he will. If you ask him with the faith that is required, without doubt you shall receive. For if you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give a good spirit to them that ask him? (Luc. XI.) See, you plainly have, as I judge, what ought to be done by you, and how, or by what reasoning, it can be fulfilled.

But you still ask to be shown whence what has not been fulfilled — through negligence, or in any other way whatever — can be made good. Say first how much you owe your Lord. A hundred measures of oil, perhaps? A great debt, 673Cand hard to pay. It is a great debt to love God with the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul. See, a debt of ten thousand talents. No wonder if you greatly fear and tremble; but hear briefly what you should do. Forgive the hundred pence that are owed to you, and every debt shall be forgiven you; and with confidence you will be able to pray for yourself and those like you: forgive us our debts as we also, and so forth. What, you say, if nothing is owed to me — how shall what I myself owe be forgiven me? By the same order, from the same fountain from which you drew grace in performing, draw also the indulgence of compassion in showing mercy. From these things you can certainly see that nothing is wanting to the Gospel for the perfection of teaching. You have in it whereby you may be justified, you have from it whereby you may be given life. He that eateth, he says, my 673Dflesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life (Joan. VI).

What more do you still seek? Could that lamb of the law do any such thing? See, the Gospel sets forth that whereby a man can be justified, which legal teaching cannot do at all. Certainly under the law many were perfect; certainly in the time of the Gospel many are imperfect. Yet the perfection of the former is not ascribed to the law, just as neither is the imperfection of the latter to the Gospel. For divine grace conferred this on them, and not the teaching of the law.

By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (Galat. II). It is one thing to be just and another to be justified. Since God indeed is just, and yet not 674Ajustified. But it is agreed that sin makes a man unjust. What therefore is it for a sinner to be justified, if not to be freed from sin? For from sin a man becomes liable both to vice and to punishment. In the one he is bound to guilt; in the other he is bound to penalty. In the one he incurs the debt of servitude, but in the other the debt of eternal damnation: He that committeth sin is the servant of sin (Joan. III). But he who is a servant needs redemption that he may be able to go out free. But the law neither teaches whence a man ought to be redeemed, nex does it set forth whence he may be able to be freed. The teaching of the law, therefore, does not free from sin, and (as follows from this) by it no flesh shall be justified. What then does the law do? It teaches what a man ought to do, it teaches what he ought to beware of, but it does not teach how he can fulfill it. 674BIt forbids coveting, it commands loving God with the whole heart; it commands ordered love, it forbids disordered love. You have heard what it does; hear what it effects. What it forbids is done by the flesh at every hour; but what it commands is never fulfilled by the flesh. Whence also by its works no one is justified. For whatever it teaches is either such as he cannot do, or such as cannot justify. From these things, as I judge, you have understood what the frequency of sinning is. Now attend to what the violence of sin is. It is commanded in the law, for certain sins, that of the transgressors one be stoned, another burned, another die by any other death whatever. And yet many crimes of this kind were committed by the hearers of the law. It can therefore easily be weighed how great the violence of sin is, 674Cwhich in some could not be restrained even by the peril of death itself. The law having been given, therefore, and frequent and manifold transgression following, it became plainly known how great is the frequency of sinning, and how great the violence of sin. Hence it is that, when it has first been set down that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified, it is at once added by the Apostle: For by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. III). It is plainly given to be understood, therefore, or he gives it to be understood, that by the law there is only the knowledge of sin, and not the abolition of it as well. For if abolition, then certainly justification. Someone will perhaps wonder why it is not said rather the knowledge of the commandment than the knowledge of sin; for that too could equally truly have been said. For as by the law there is only the knowledge of sin, and not 674Dthe abolition of it, so by the law there is only the knowledge of the commandment, and not the fulfilling of it. But as far as it seems to me, if he had first set down that by the works of the law no one was just, or had justice, he would more fittingly add: For by the law is the knowledge of the commandment, than if he said, For by the law is the knowledge of sin. For what is more rightly called justice than the observance of the divine commandment? A man's justification is the same as his liberation from sin. Since therefore he has first spoken of a man's justification, it is easy to see how fittingly he adds: By the law is the knowledge of sin, rather than the knowledge of the commandment.

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin (Rom. VII). It is rightly asked in whose person the Apostle says these things, 675Amost of all on account of those things which are subsequently joined to them.

It is asked, therefore, whether it is said in the person of the weak or of the imperfect, or rather in the person both of these and of those. For as far as it seems to me, it stands clearer than light what, concerning the criminal, these things ought neither to be expounded, nor can they at all be rightly understood. For who thereafter will be able reasonably to convict any criminal of his crime, if he can bring forward the apostolic testimony in his own excuse, and boldly answer the one convicting him: It is not I who work it, but the sin that was in me? For what is it to expound these apostolic words in such a way that they can also fit the impious? What, I say, is this other than to teach the workers of iniquity to incline their heart to words of malice, to make excuses in 675Bsins? But this seems to be the thing to be asked in these words of the Apostle: whether it is said under the form of the perfect, or of the imperfect? But how can it fit the Apostle, or any perfect man whatever: but I am carnal, sold under sin? For who would deservedly be called spiritual, if Paul, or men like Paul, are believed to be carnal? If what the Apostle sets out in this place fits only the weaker sort, without doubt it does not accomplish what he strives to prove by these words. For he had said of the law that it cannot confer justice, but rather that it works wrath. But lest this be believed to be from a fault of the law and not of man, therefore he consequently adds and says that the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. But here the Apostle 675Cplainly shows that it is from a fault of man that he cannot be justified by the law, since he is by no means sufficient for the fulfilling of it. It must therefore be known first of all that according to different respects we take the placing of words in different ways. We judge otherwise, therefore, concerning man according to the present state, and otherwise according to that state which was before sin. According to the present state some are called spiritual, others carnal. But without doubt, in respect of the first condition, however religious a man may be, he is not undeservedly called carnal. But as regards the present state, those are called carnal who go after their own concupiscences and are slaves to carnal desires; and spiritual, those who strongly resist the desires of the flesh, 675Dand vehemently press on with spiritual pursuits. It belongs to the carnal to feel the concupiscences of the flesh and to consent to them. It belongs to the spiritual to feel them and not to consent, but to resist, but to fight back, but to mortify them. But if we look back to the state of the first condition, in this very thing we are carnal, that we feel the concupiscences of the flesh, and foul and disordered delights. For if man had not sinned, he would neither have loved carnal things more than was lawful, nor spiritual things less than was fitting; but in loving both he could have both known and observed the bounds of moderation and the measure of equity. But after man of his own accord deserted the uprightness of his state, being now once sold under sin and made carnal, he is sufficient for neither: for in manifold ways he both errs in judgment and is unbridled 676Ain desire. How true therefore is that prophetic saying: In thy sight no living man shall be justified (Psal. CXLII); how true also is that apostolic one: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I Joan. I). Just as truly can it be understood of any religious man, but I am carnal, sold under sin; and whence and in what respects he is carnal he shows when he adds: For that which I work, I understand not. I do not that which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do. See, three evils in which our carnality consists. What we do we do not understand; we do not do what we will; we do what we do not will. But the Apostle joins the two latter, since both descend from one fault. For from the fault of concupiscence 676Bboth descend: both that we are lukewarm toward the good, and fervent toward the evil: That which I work, he says, I understand not (Rom. VII), and this in him certainly from the fault of ignorance. I do not, he says, that which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do. From this twofold fault, certainly, it comes to us that we are carnal so long as we live in the flesh.

But it is to be noted that the Apostle adds two things subsequently to the one thing he set down first. He set down first that he was carnal, and by the two things joined he shows whence this was in him. The first sentence must therefore be repeated, and joined to each of the two clauses in this manner. I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I work, I understand not. I am carnal, I say, 676Csold under sin, for I do not that which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do. Anyone can prove in himself how truly it is said, that which I work I understand not. Did he understand what he was working who said to the Lord in prayer: I give thee thanks, O Lord, because I am not as the rest of men? (Luc. XVIII.) Did those also well understand what they said: All things that the Lord hath spoken we will do? (Exod. XLII.) For the words seem to be words of great devotion, and they are truly words of great presumption. Often, from that whereby a man thinks to stir up devotion, he nourishes elation and feeds presumption. But whence is this, I ask, if not because he does not understand what he does? Often a man is proud, and knows it not. Often he presumes, and meanwhile does not understand it. For both kinds of 676Dignorance divine grace is wont to be withdrawn. For while he acts presumptuously and knows it not, grace is withdrawn lest he accomplish what he desires. While he is proud and knows it not, he is often permitted to fall into that which he blushes at and hates, and he who is of this sort can say: For I do not that which I will, but the evil which I hate, that I do. But however spiritual a man may be, he errs not only in discerning but also in deliberating, when what he thinks works together with him unto good works together with him unto evil, and what he believes works together with him unto evil works together unto good. But whence does this good come about, if not because he does not understand what he works? But what wonder is it if we do not understand what we work, we who know not what we should pray for as we ought? For who could not be deceived in praying, if 677Athe apostle Paul could be deceived in this very thing? For he thrice asked that that be taken from him which had been inflicted upon him as mercifully as it was usefully, for the keeping of humility.

As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation. But if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest (I Cor. III). There are those who define the foundation in this place to be faith working through love. I confidently say that no man can lay such a foundation in a human heart. What is to be believed, a man can teach a man. But love a man cannot pour into a man. For the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, not by man, but by the Holy 677BSpirit who has been given to us. As a wise architect, he says, I have laid the foundation. What, I ask, is that foundation which Paul laid, and which could be laid by Paul? Certainly Paul could teach how one ought to believe in Christ, and taught it without ambiguity. This document of our faith is agreed for certain to be the foundation of the spiritual building. First of all it is that a man should know what he ought to believe, or to do, and this a man can know through a man. The preacher of truth ought therefore diligently to teach what one must believe, in what works a man ought to press on, or how by true penance he can blot out the evils he has committed; and this will be for him to lay the foundation. How many there are who both have this foundation of catholic 677Cteaching, and hold it by memory, but build upon it very different things! For some do good deeds, others sin in the hope of coming to their senses. Both, therefore, have the foundation of true faith, but build different things upon it. Some gold, silver, precious stones; others wood, hay, stubble. Gold, silver, precious stones cannot be consumed by fire. These indeed can pass through the fire, and remain after the burning: If any man's work, he says, abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If therefore by such things we acquire a reward, what else ought we to understand by gold, silver, and precious stones than good works. But in wood, hay and stubble what, I ask, ought to be understood — good works or evil? Wood, hay and stubble the fire is wont 677Dto consume, and as it were to reduce to nothing. But far be it that that future fire should be able to consume and annihilate good works. In wood, therefore, and hay and stubble nothing is rightly understood except works worthy of burning, and fit for being consumed, not for remaining. What then are these things that are to be burned and consumed by fire, if not evil works? If any man's work, he says, burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Who, I ask, are these workmen who are saved indeed not as it were by good working, but so, certainly, as by fire? This we hold for certain, that no evil workman whatever can be purged by purgatorial fire unless he has truly repented of the evils he has committed. For true penance alone brings it about that the perpetration of evils 678Acan be consumed and blotted out by purgatorial fire. But no crimes are so detestable that true penance does not make them soluble. There seem therefore to be two kinds of insoluble works, but one kind of soluble works: the true goods of those persevering, the persevering evils of those not repenting, and to be blotted out by no term. But the evils of those truly repenting are without doubt soluble, and can without doubt be blotted out by purgatorial fire. In wood, therefore, and hay and stubble we understand any soluble evils whatever. But since they cannot be consumed by fire, but remain forever — not only the goods that are to endure, but also the insoluble evils — what is it that he says, whose work shall abide that he builds thereupon shall receive a reward? But what he adds, if any man's work abide, is to be referred only to those workmen of whom he has already 678Bspoken before. Of those workmen, therefore, who build not iron, lead and tin, but gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble — of workmen of this sort, I say, if any man's work abide he shall receive a reward. if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. By gold, therefore, and silver and precious stones we understand, as we have said, enduring goods. By wood, hay and stubble, soluble evils. In gold there is rightly enough understood the contemplation of truth; in silver the word of preaching; in precious stones the exercises of virtue; in wood, hay and stubble understand the works of perversity, superfluity and vanity, 678Cmade remissible through true penance.

It seems perhaps a thing to be wondered at by some, how the Apostle judges that that shameful man who had his father's wife should be delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. But this cannot come into doubt: that by the same power whereby he could free a man possessed from a demon, he could also (where reason required it) deliver a man to demonic vexation. But if some shameful man is delivered to Satan and is made possessed by a demon, the way of salvation seems in this not to be opened to him but shut off. For the crimes he has committed cannot be blotted out without true penance. But how can one possessed by a demon, who lacks his senses, have true penance? How therefore does the Apostle judge that that shameful man is to be delivered 678Dto Satan, that the spirit may be saved? It must therefore be known that demonic vexation is of one kind continual, of another intermittent. He suffers continual vexation who is never allowed to rest, but is driven by unceasing furies. But he incurs intermittent vexation who at different times now loses his senses, now recovers them, and amid manifold torments the mind of the tormented man sometimes returns to itself. He therefore who has been delivered over to intermittent infamy has for certain the means of repenting, and by that very fact the means whereby he can be saved. For who could be of a mind so hardened, so obstinate, that in the very intermission of his vexation, when his mind has returned to itself, he does not grieve and inwardly repent of having committed that whence it has befallen him both to incur demonic vexation 679Aand to lie open to every mockery. See therefore how from the intermission of the vexation it often comes about that the vexation itself becomes for him a cause of repentance, and from that repentance it is brought about that the vexation itself is for him unto purgation. The Apostle therefore plainly gives it to be understood to what kind of vexation he wished that criminal to be delivered, in that he says, that the spirit may be saved. For as by the continual vexation of the demon the way of salvation could be shut off rather than opened, so conversely by intermittent vexation it seemed that it ought to be opened rather than shut off.

But it is to be noted that to be delivered unto the destruction of the flesh — for certain, when a man dies the spirit itself thereafter does not use the services of the flesh at its wish. The flesh of one possessed by a demon therefore dies in a certain way to its own spirit, 679Bwhen the malign spirit violently abuses its services, and his own spirit is deprived of the bodily service owed to it.

It seems a wonder to you that it is said by the Apostle: All things, he says, are lawful to me (I Cor. VI). Many things indeed are lawful, yet not all. For many things are utterly unlawful for every man. But what we call lawful we are wont to take in two ways. For we take the same expression sometimes more strictly, sometimes more broadly. We say that is lawful which can be done in an ordered way. Sometimes we say that is lawful which we are free to do, whether or not it can be done in an ordered way. Hence it is that it is wont to be said of a man of crime that he would gladly have done this or that crime, if it had been lawful 679Cfor him to do it; which is to say, if he had had the ability or the opportunity of doing it. Hence it is that blessed Gregory in his Dialogue says of certain less religious brothers, who had chosen blessed Benedict as abbot, but now repented of having chosen him because of the discipline of a stricter life — whence they were preparing to do away with him by poison, because they saw that unlawful things were not lawful for them under him. What is it that he says, that unlawful things were not lawful for them, if not that under him they had no license or liberty for doing unlawful things? We know that God has placed it in man's liberty whether he wishes to choose good things or evil. Hence is that saying of the Wise Man about the Lord: He hath set before thee fire and water; stretch forth thy hand unto which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which shall please him shall be given him 679D(Eccli. XV). Hence it is that the Apostle, having enumerated so many evils, adds and says: All things are lawful to me, lawful certainly not according to concession, but according to permission alone. According to concession only ordered things are lawful; according to permission alone even disordered things. For the Lord permits many things to be done which nevertheless he concedes to no one to do. All things, he says, are lawful to me — without doubt as regards permission; but all things are not expedient, not even of those that are done according to concession. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any — namely of any of those things which are done from permission alone. For what he says, all things are not expedient, looks to that license which is according to concession. But what he says, but I will not be brought 680Aunder the power of any, looks to that license which is according to permission alone. For many of the things that are conceded hinder greater goods, and therefore are not expedient, yet do not consign the user to servitude. But he who commits sin is the servant of sin. If therefore we wish to avoid this servitude, and not to be brought under the power of any, those things which are lawful from permission alone must be carefully shunned. But that not all things are expedient which are lawful according to concession he evidently shows when he adds: Meat for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them (I Cor. VI). Meats certainly were made for the refreshment of the belly, and are therefore lawful according to concession; yet it is not expedient to indulge them overmuch, and to omit more necessary pursuits. For what does too great an indulgence 680Bin them avail, when it stands truly agreed that God shall destroy both it and them. But that not all things which are lawful according to permission are lawful according to concession, he shows subsequently when he immediately adds: But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (ibid.). Meats indeed are for eating, and the belly for using. But the body is not for fornicating, but for serving its own Lord. For that we can fornicate often when we will is not the indulgence of one conceding, but the testing, or the desertion, of one permitting. He had said above that fornicators shall not possess the kingdom of God; but because he foresaw that there would be many who would find this hard to believe, and who would not think the evil of fornication so 680Cdamnable, therefore he consequently shows in two things what we ought to think of this evil. For he shows how deep this kind of evil is, and how it is beyond all others inward. For by the work of fornication the members of Christ are taken away, and are made the members of a harlot. Hence one may see how deep this kind of evil is, which casts down from so great a height into this lowest and foul thing. Hear also how it is beyond all others inward: Every sin, he says, whatsoever a man doth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body (I Cor. VI). But if we wish more fully to understand the rights of the apostolic judgment, we must raise our consideration higher. Man, as we commonly know, consists of a twofold substance, one 680Dcorporeal, the other incorporeal. The corporeal can die; the incorporeal cannot. The incorporeal can subsist without nourishment, but the corporeal cannot at all. But the corporeal substance, which cannot preserve its own nature of itself, can of itself restore and even multiply it — which the spiritual substance cannot do at all. You certainly see that the prerogative of the corporeal substance is one thing, the prerogative of the incorporeal substance another. The prerogative of the incorporeal substance is that it can subsist forever, and without support. The prerogative of the corporeal substance is that it can produce from its own substance a substance conformed to itself, and by sowing multiply the nature of its own kind. But this conformity of substance we cannot produce from ourselves without 681Aa drawing away, so to speak, of our own substance. For the begetting of offspring does not take place without a certain cutting off from the begetter. In which this too is to be noted, that this cutting off of the parent for this work is not made, nor indeed can be made, from any member of the body whatever, but is drawn out from the inmost part and as it were from a certain treasury of its own kind placed in the inward parts, and stored away for that office. But although nothing more excellent seems to have been given to corporeal substance than this dowry of nature, it is nevertheless more glorious to cease from this office than to exercise it, in that after the corruption of nature it cannot be fulfilled without lust and foul delight. For that it is lawful to exercise this with one's own spouse, and only for the sake of begetting offspring — this very thing, if you attend well, is a matter of indulgence rather than of chastity. But there is in drink and food 681Bno small delight, and yet it is not vicious, except for him for whom it has been excessive and passes into surfeit or drunkenness. But in surfeit and drunkenness there is a certain drawing away of another's substance. But in the work of lust there is a certain drawing away and cutting off of one's own substance. There indeed the exaction of viciousness is made upon another's body. But here upon one's own body, nay from the very inmost part of the body itself. Well therefore was it said of the rest, that every sin is without the body. But he who commits fornication sins not only in his own inmost part, but also against his very own body, since he seems to empty out his own body into the uses of foulness, and abuses the prerogative of a divine gift for filth both his own and another's.

If any man think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known 681Chow he ought to know (I Cor. VIII). What, I ask, shall we say to these things? To say nothing of the rest, what are we to say of the Apostle himself? If the Apostle did not think that he knew anything, with what face did he busy himself with teaching the rest by preaching and by writing? And if he does not think that to be true which he declares from the words set down before, why, I ask, does he so steadfastly affirm that very thing? If he did not think that he knew anything, what is it that he set down above, when he says: But concerning those things that are sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge? But this very thing which he seems to say in this place he seems to contradict in what follows. But knowledge, he says, is not in all. How, I ask, do all have knowledge, if knowledge is not in all, and how can it be wanting to those who have it? 681DIt must therefore be known that one knowledge is that which all have. Another is that which certain men do not have, but are able to have. But another is that which in this life no one has, nor is able to have. We all have knowledge — behold, of the first. Knowledge is not in all — behold, of the second. But to the third the Apostle looks in what he says: But if any man think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known in what manner he ought to know (Rom. II). The knowledge of discerning between true and false, good and evil, just and unjust — although some more perfectly, others more imperfectly — we all nevertheless have in common: Jews, Greeks, barbarians and Latins. For if that knowledge were not common to the faithful and the unfaithful, in no way would the Apostle 682Ahave said: For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts (ibid.). Behold, of the knowledge which all have. But the knowledge which, with grace received, would suffice each man unto salvation, many do not have, and yet are still able to have. Of knowledge of this sort is understood what is rightly said by the Apostle: But knowledge is not in all (I Cor. VIII). That he wished knowledge of this sort to be understood there is shown by what he had set down before. For, although there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and we through him. And to this end 682Bwe receive that knowledge which is common to all, that we may be able to seek and to find that which suffices unto salvation. But of this knowledge which is truly of salvation, some have more, others less; and it often happens that those who have less are saved, and those who have more perish. For the greatness of knowledge is for some the kindling of pride, and by that very fact the cause of ruin. This very thing he intimates who says: Lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me an angel Satan, a sting of my flesh, to buffet me (II Cor. XII). But no one who is in this life can fully know whether the knowledge he has, with grace received, can suffice him unto salvation. This is the knowledge which in this life no one has, no one is able to grasp: Even if I shall be simple, says 682CJob, this very thing shall my soul be ignorant of (Job IX). To the same judgment runs what Solomon says: Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred (Eccle. IX). We have from his judgment that man is ignorant of what profits him in his life. We have according to the same: That man knoweth not his own end, but as fishes are taken with the hook, and as birds are caught with the snare, so, and so forth. (Ibid.) From these words, therefore, we understand for certain that we cannot have in this life the knowledge of sure security. If therefore, according to Solomon, all things are kept uncertain for the future, see what you ought to think of your own knowledge. Certainly, even if it seems something great as regards quantity, you do not know whether it be even a little thing, you do not know whether it be anything at all unto your profit. Of what sort, I ask, must that 682Destimation of a thing be called, of which you do not know, as far as concerns you, whether it be of some worth or of none. We ought therefore, so far as we can, to advance in knowledge, and yet, however much we shall have advanced, to reckon it as nothing, so long as we cannot have a sure judgment of its end. According to this consideration, therefore, what is said by the Apostle is rightly understood: If any man think that he knoweth anything, he hath not yet known in what manner he ought to know.

Every love is either only gratuitous, or only owed, or owed and gratuitous at once. And gratuitous love can be understood in two ways. We rightly call that love gratuitous which is according to grace alone. The fullness of true and highest love is 683Awhen it is so great and of such a kind that no greater or better can be. Where there is not the highest perfection, the highest love is not of avail, nor indeed ought it to be. That is according to grace alone which, at the good pleasure of the one bestowing it, can justly be bestowed or not bestowed. But from the divine excellence 684Awhatever can be said to be according to grace alone is utterly foreign. Likewise love is not incongruously called gratuitous where to him who bestows all things nothing but love is rendered in return.