FIFTH DISPUTATION. Against the heretics of our time, who argue from this passage of Moses that every work and every action of any man whatever — even of the justified and the holy — is sin — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FIFTH DISPUTATION. Against the heretics of our time, who argue from this passage of Moses that every work and every action of any man whatever — even of the justified and the holy — is sin.¹

QUINTA DISPUTATIO. Adversus haereticos nostri temporis ex hoc loco Mosis argumentantes omne opus omnemque actionem cuiuslibet hominis, etiam iustificati et sancti, esse peccatum.

Solent Haeretici libenter ex sacris litteris, undecunque possunt, argumenta per vim exprimere quibus fidem placitis suis astruant et speciem aliquam veritatis ac pietatis erroribus suis praetendant. Itaque ex hoc etiam loco, ubi Moses ait cunctam cogitationem cordis humani intentam esse ad malum omni tempore, argumentantur omnia quaecumque faciunt homines, etiam iustificati et sancti, esse mala et peccata, quanquam ea credentibus in Christum non imputentur ad damnationem et poenam aeternam. Hoc nempe princeps eorum Lutherus tradidit in articulis suis a Leone X damnatis, artic. 31. Si enim, inquiunt, omne cor humanum intentum est omni tempore ad malum, ex corde autem prodeunt omnes actiones hominis, necesse profecto est, vitiato corde quasi fonte, omnes actiones tanquam rivulos ex eo profluentes vitiatas et corruptas esse. Neque enim potest arbor mala bonos fructus facere.

The heretics are wont readily to wring by force out of the sacred writings, from wherever they can, arguments by which to build credit for their tenets and to put forward some appearance of truth and piety for their errors. And so from this passage too, where Moses says that all the thought of the human heart is bent upon evil at all times, they argue that all things whatsoever that men do — even the justified and the holy — are evil and sins, although these are not imputed, to those who believe in Christ, unto damnation and eternal punishment. This indeed their leader Luther handed down in his articles condemned by Leo X, article 31. “For if,” they say, “every human heart is bent at all times upon evil, and from the heart proceed all the actions of man, then it is surely necessary that, the heart being corrupted as a fountain, all the actions, like streamlets flowing from it, be corrupted and vitiated. For a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.”²

Hoc ipsum illi confirmant aliis divinae scripturae sententiis, sed duabus praecipue. Proferunt enim verba illa Isaiae ex capite 64, quibus apertissime confitetur Isaias omnes actiones hominum, etiam quae videntur iustae, esse immundas: Facti sumus, inquit, ut immundi omnes nos, et quasi pannus menstruatae universa iustitia nostra. Adiungunt et illam sententiam Davidis ex Psalmo 142: Non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens. Si nullus, inquiunt, mortalium iustificari potest apud Deum, nullius igitur mortalium opera possunt esse iusta; nam si iusta essent, ex his et propter haec iustificaretur homo, Factores enim legis, inquit Paulus, iustificabuntur apud Deum. Haec illi.

This same thing they confirm by other sentences of divine Scripture, but chiefly by two. For they bring forward those words of Isaiah from chapter 64, by which Isaiah most openly confesses that all the actions of men, even those that seem just, are unclean: “We are all become,” he says, “as one unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman.” And they add that saying of David from Psalm 142: “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight no living thing shall be justified.” “If no mortal,” they say, “can be justified before God, then the works of no mortal can be just; for if they were just, man would be justified from them and on account of them — for ‘the doers of the law,’ says Paul, ‘shall be justified before God.’” Thus they.³

Verum scite quispiam dixit haereticos esse similes illius Sisyphi, quem poetae fabulantur eo genere supplicii apud inferos plecti, ut saxum ingens in cuiusdam montis verticem cogatur provolvere, quod cum ad summum pene extulerit, repente deorsum relabatur. Unde illud apud Ciceronem: ...quod Sisyphus versat / saxum sudans, nitendo, neque proficit hilum.

But someone aptly said that the heretics are like that Sisyphus whom the poets fable to be punished in the underworld with that kind of penalty: that he is compelled to roll a huge stone up to the summit of a mountain, which, when he has nearly raised it to the top, suddenly slips back down. Whence that line in Cicero: “…the stone that Sisyphus keeps turning, / sweating, by straining, and gains not a whit.”⁴

Similiter obnixe conantur haeretici veram et sacram Ecclesiae Catholicae doctrinam obscurare et pervertere, sed frustra, scilicet vano nisu, irrito conatu, nulloque effectu. Quemadmodum enim ex sacris litteris prave intellectis et explicatis haeresum tenebrae exoriuntur, sic contra, earundem sacrarum litterarum recta et germana interpretatione atque intelligentia, quasi solis splendore, omnis haeresum caligo discutitur. Ostendamus igitur tres supradictas scripturae sententias nihil plane opinioni haereticorum suffragari ac favere.

In like manner the heretics strive earnestly to obscure and pervert the true and sacred doctrine of the Catholic Church — but in vain, namely with a vain effort, a fruitless endeavor, and no effect. For just as from the sacred writings badly understood and explained the darkness of heresies arises, so, on the contrary, by the right and genuine interpretation and understanding of those same sacred writings, as by the splendor of the sun, all the fog of heresies is dispelled. Let us therefore show that the three aforesaid sentences of Scripture in no way support and favor the opinion of the heretics.⁵

Ac primo quidem ad illam Mosis sententiam tripliciter respondere licet. Etenim Moses utitur ibi locutione hyperbolica, quae non omnino generaliter, sed plurimum et maxima ex parte interpretanda et intelligenda est, sicut paulo supra diximus. Nam quia plerique omnes illius aetatis sceleratissimi erant, et pleraque eorum opera erant flagitiosissima, ita ut vix unus aut alter esset vir bonus verusque ac pius Dei cultor, propterea Moses dixit cunctam cogitationem humani cordis intentam fuisse ad malum omni tempore. Deinde Moses illud dixit non de omnibus hominibus omnium seculorum, sed de hominibus tantummodo eius temporis quod praecessit diluvium; ac ne de illis quidem omnibus, mox enim ipsemet Moses excepit Noë, appellans eum iustum, perfectum et Deo gratum. His adde quod illud dictum Mosis accipiendum est de hominibus impiis et secundum carnem viventibus et Dei Spiritu atque gratia carentibus. Quamobrem inscienter faciunt, ne dicam impudenter, haeretici qui sententiam illam Mosis ad universum genus hominum, etiam ad iustos et sanctos viros, detorquent.

And first, to that sentence of Moses one may reply in three ways. For Moses there uses a hyperbolic manner of speech, which is to be interpreted and understood not altogether universally, but for the most part and in the greatest part, as we said a little above. For because almost all of that age were most wicked, and most of their works were most criminal, so that there was scarcely one or another good man, a true and pious worshiper of God, therefore Moses said that all the thought of the human heart was bent upon evil at all times. Next, Moses said this not of all men of all ages, but only of the men of that time which preceded the Flood; and not even of all of those, for soon Moses himself excepted Noah, calling him just, perfect, and pleasing to God. Add to this that this saying of Moses is to be taken of impious men, living according to the flesh and lacking the Spirit and grace of God. Wherefore the heretics act ignorantly — not to say impudently — who wrest that sentence of Moses to the whole race of men, even to the just and holy.⁶

Nec operosum est alteram illam sententiam, quae ex 64 cap. Isaiae deprompta est, sic interpretari ut palam sit eam huic opinioni haereticorum nullam plane fidem facere. Loquitur Isaias eo loco de sceleratis et impiis Iudaeis, quorum id temporis tanta erat multitudo ut prae illis boni ac pii viri, quia paucissimi erant, velut nulli haberentur. Appellat autem iustitias legales eorum observantias aliaque eorum opera specie atque existimatione hominum iusta; verum quia Spiritus sancti gratia erant vacua, pravoque animo et consilio facta, atque innumerabilibus permixta et contaminata sceleribus, merito iustitiae illae appellantur pannus menstruatae.

Nor is it laborious to interpret that other sentence, drawn from chapter 64 of Isaiah, in such a way that it is plain it lends no credit at all to this opinion of the heretics. Isaiah in that place speaks of the wicked and impious Jews, of whom there was at that time so great a multitude that, in comparison with them, the good and pious men, because they were very few, were reckoned as nothing. And he calls “justices” their legal observances and other works, just in the appearance and estimation of men; but because they were void of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and done with a depraved mind and intention, and mixed and contaminated with innumerable crimes, those “justices” are deservedly called “the rag of a menstruous woman.”⁷

Nec ab hac interpretatione propterea quempiam deduci convenit quod se Isaias illis hominibus annumeret. Mos enim est Prophetarum, sicut etiam nostrorum concionatorum, cum deplorant vel obiurgant hominum peccata, vel pro illis divinam implorant clementiam, seipsos aggregare et annumerare peccatoribus, quamvis ipsi sint iusti nec talium scelerum participes. Nimirum id faciebant illi vel humilitatis causa, vel ut sic magis Dei flecterent misericordiam, vel ex affectu caritatis quae omnia facit communia, etiam peccata — non quidem ad assentiendum illis, sed ad lugenda quasi sua essent, vel ad orandum et satisfaciendum pro illis. Ieremias quidem non modo sanctus erat, sed etiam in utero matris sanc-...

Nor is it fitting that anyone be drawn away from this interpretation because Isaiah numbers himself among those men. For it is the custom of the Prophets — as also of our preachers — when they deplore or rebuke the sins of men, or implore the divine clemency on their behalf, to associate and number themselves with the sinners, although they themselves are just and not partakers of such crimes. They did this, doubtless, either for the sake of humility, or that they might thus the more bend God’s mercy, or from the affection of charity, which makes all things common, even sins — not indeed to consent to them, but to mourn them as if they were their own, or to pray and make satisfaction for them. Jeremiah, indeed, was not only holy, but even in his mother’s womb was sanc-…⁸

...tificatus, ut nullam per totam vitam mortale peccatum fecisse credatur; is tamen capite tertio sic loquitur: Dormiemus in confusione nostra, et operiet nos ignominia nostra, quoniam domino Deo nostro peccavimus nos et patres nostri ab adolescentia nostra usque ad diem hanc, et non audivimus vocem domini Dei nostri. Ad eundem modum Esaias praedicto loco enumerat gravissima peccata tanquam sibi cum reliquis Iudaeis communia, quae tamen ab ipso fuisse remotissima certum est: Non est, inquit, qui invocet nomen tuum, qui consurgat et teneat te — quis non videt hoc in Isaiam nequaquam convenire? Ergo in Prophetarum concionibus quibus populus reprehenditur, nonnunquam generales sententiae non sunt generaliter interpretandae, sed plurimum et maxima in parte accipiendae; qualis est illa Michaeae capite 7: Periit sanctus de terra, et rectus in hominibus non est; et illa Ieremiae capite 8: A minimo usque ad maximum omnes avaritiam sequuntur.

…tified, so that he is believed to have committed no mortal sin in his whole life; yet he, in the third chapter, speaks thus: “We shall sleep in our confusion, and our shame shall cover us, because we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and have not heard the voice of the Lord our God.” In the same way Isaiah, in the aforesaid place, enumerates the gravest sins as common to himself with the rest of the Jews — which, however, it is certain were most remote from him: “There is none,” he says, “that calls upon thy name, that rises up and lays hold of thee” — who does not see that this in no way fits Isaiah? Therefore, in the sermons of the Prophets in which the people are reproved, general statements are sometimes not to be interpreted universally, but to be taken for the most part and in the greatest part; such as that of Micah, chapter 7: “The holy man has perished from the earth, and there is none upright among men”; and that of Jeremiah, chapter 8: “From the least even to the greatest, all follow after avarice.”⁹

Restat explicanda tertia illa sententia: Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens; quae nihilo plus sane quam superiores sententiae causam haereticorum adiuvat. Eam vero rectissime interpretati sunt Augustinus in explanatione eius Psalmi et in lib. de Perfectione iustitiae et in sermone 49 De tempore, et Hieronymus in Epistola ad Ctesiphontem et in primo libro adversus Pelagianos, Gregorius item, Theodoretus et Arnobius in expositione eius Psalmi 142. Ex quorum patrum Commentariis quadruplicem illorum verborum Davidis explicationem collectam hic brevissime ponemus. Prima interpretatio: Nemo apud Deum iustificari potest sicut apud homines, apud quos nostris viribus et operibus ita possumus mereri aliquam mercedem ut eam nostro iure et ex rigore iustitiae exigere possimus, quia ex his quae nostra sunt et indebita illis, obsequium, servitium aut quodlibet aliud officium ipsis exhibere possumus. Non sic res habet apud Deum. Nullus enim prior dedit ei ut retribuatur ipsi; cuique enim mortalium dictum est illud a Paulo: Quid habes quod non accepisti? Nam bona merita hominum nullius pretii sunt apud Deum, nisi ea ratione ut proficiscuntur ex gratia et Spiritu sancto in nobis habitante; gratia autem non propter nostra opera, sed gratis data nobis est, alioqui non esset gratia, ut disputat Paulus ad Rom. 11.

There remains to be explained that third sentence: “In thy sight no living thing shall be justified”; which assuredly helps the cause of the heretics no more than the foregoing sentences. And this, most correctly, Augustine interpreted — in the exposition of that Psalm, and in the book On the Perfection of Justice, and in sermon 49 On the Season — and Jerome, in the Epistle to Ctesiphon and in the first book against the Pelagians; Gregory likewise, and Theodoret and Arnobius, in the exposition of that Psalm 142. From the commentaries of these fathers we shall here set down, most briefly, a fourfold explanation of those words of David, collected together. First interpretation: No one can be justified before God as before men, with whom by our own powers and works we can so merit some reward that we can demand it by our own right and from the rigor of justice, because from things that are ours and not owed to them we can render them homage, service, or any other duty. It is not so with God. For no one has first given to him, that it should be repaid to him; for to each mortal is said that of Paul: “What hast thou that thou hast not received?” For the good merits of men are of no value before God, except in so far as they proceed from grace and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us; and grace is given to us not on account of our works, but freely — otherwise it would not be grace, as Paul argues to the Romans 11.¹⁰

Altera interpretatio. Nullum hominem iustificari in conspectu Dei non aliud significat quam neminem censeri iustum comparatum cum Deo; ut illud in conspectu Dei idem sit quod comparatione Dei. Quemadmodum enim nemo bonus, sapiens, immortalis et mundus dicitur nisi solus Deus, sic et iustus; quantalibet enim iustitia hominum, si cum iustitia Dei comparetur, plane nulla est. Noli me, inquit Augustinus, iudicare secundum te, qui es sine peccato, quia Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens. Noli intrare mecum in iudicium; quantumlibet enim rectus mihi videar, producis tu tamen de thesauro tuo iustitiae regulam, coaptas me ad eam, et pravus invenior. Illustrant maxime hanc interpretationem duae sententiae Iob: altera est in capite quarto, Nunquid homo, inquit, Dei comparatione iustificabitur, aut factore suo purior erit vir? Ecce qui serviunt ei non sunt stabiles, et in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem; quanto magis hi qui habitant domos luteas, qui terrenum habent fundamentum, consumentur veluti a tinea? Huius altera illa perquam similis est sententia in capite 25: Nunquid iustificari potest homo comparatus Deo, aut apparere mundus natus de muliere? Ecce luna etiam non splendet, et stellae non sunt mundae in conspectu eius; quanto magis homo putredo, et filius hominis vermis?

Second interpretation. That no man is justified in God’s sight signifies nothing else than that no one is reckoned just in comparison with God; so that “in the sight of God” is the same as “in comparison with God.” For just as no one is called good, wise, immortal, and clean except God alone, so also just; for however great the justice of men, if compared with the justice of God, it is plainly nothing. “Judge me not,” says Augustine, “according to thyself, who art without sin, because ‘in thy sight no living thing shall be justified.’ Enter not into judgment with me; for however upright I may seem to myself, thou yet bringest forth from thy treasury the rule of justice, fittest me to it, and I am found crooked.” This interpretation is greatly illustrated by two sentences of Job: one is in the fourth chapter, “Shall man,” he says, “be justified in comparison with God, or shall a man be purer than his maker? Behold, they that serve him are not steadfast, and in his angels he found depravity; how much more shall they that dwell in houses of clay, who have an earthly foundation, be consumed as it were by the moth?” Most like this is that other sentence in chapter 25: “Can man be justified compared with God, or appear clean, born of a woman? Behold, even the moon does not shine, and the stars are not clean in his sight; how much more man, rottenness, and the son of man, a worm?”¹¹

Tertia interpretatio. David non dixit nullum opus hominis esse iustum apud Deum, sed dixit nullum hominem iustificari in conspectu Dei, hoc est neminem esse usquequaque et omnino iustum. Nam qui nominantur et vere sunt iusti, licet multa faciant opera bona, attamen et prius multa commiserunt peccata, et dum etiam iusti sunt frequenter in leviora delicta labuntur. Non enim est homo iustus in terra qui faciat bonum et non peccet, ut scriptum est Ecclesiastes 7 et 3 Regum 8. Et illa iustorum oratio est non minus vera quam humilis, quamque Apostoli etiam usurpabant: Dimitte nobis debita nostra. Propter hanc igitur admixtionem bonorum operum cum malis, David omnisque iustus Dei iudicium formidat, nec quisquam coram Deo perfecte iustus pronuntiatur.

Third interpretation. David did not say that no work of man is just before God, but said that no man is justified in the sight of God — that is, that no one is utterly and altogether just. For those who are named, and truly are, just, although they do many good works, nevertheless both formerly committed many sins, and even while they are just frequently slip into lighter faults. For “there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin,” as is written in Ecclesiastes 7 and 3 Kings (1 Kings) 8. And that prayer of the just is no less true than humble, which the Apostles also used: “Forgive us our debts.” On account of this admixture, then, of good works with evil, David and every just man dreads the judgment of God, and no one is pronounced perfectly just before God.¹²

Ad hanc interpretationem spectat quod scribit B. Gregorius in explanatione septimi Psalmi paenitentialis, declarans haec verba Davidis, Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens: Scio, inquit, multos in conspectu hominum iustos videri, et ad spem caelestium promissorum evectos innocenter in mundo vivere, qui etiam si non delinquant in opere, labuntur tamen aliquando vana aut perversa cogitatione. Cuius enim mentem cogitationes vanae non laniant? Cuius cor tentationes non vexant? Cuius animum desideria carnis non turbant? Non ergo in conspectu Dei iustificatur qui corde delinquit quod intuetur Deus.

To this interpretation pertains what the blessed Gregory writes in the exposition of the seventh penitential Psalm, expounding these words of David, “In thy sight no living thing shall be justified”: “I know,” he says, “that many seem just in the sight of men, and, raised to the hope of the heavenly promises, live innocently in the world, who, even if they do not offend in deed, nevertheless sometimes slip in a vain or perverse thought. For whose mind do vain thoughts not tear? Whose heart do temptations not vex? Whose soul do the desires of the flesh not trouble? Therefore he is not justified in the sight of God who offends in the heart, which God beholds.”¹³

Quarta interpretatio. Illud, Neminem iustificari in conspectu Dei, intelligi oportere non simpliciter, sed cum ea adiunctione quam proxime David praemiserat, dicens Non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo. Potest igitur iustificari homo apud Deum, si cum eo misericorditer agat Deus, nec summo iure et rigore iustitiae contendat cum illo. Nam quemadmodum David dixit neminem iustificari coram Deo, ita Paulus dixit Rom. 2 factores legis iustificari apud Deum, et de Zacharia et Elisabeth Lucas scripsit eos fuisse iustos ante Deum. Ergo si hominem Deus vocet in iudicium deque vita et moribus eius quaestionem exerceat, nulla misericordia severitatem iudicii mitigante, haud dubie quilibet iniustus et reus invenietur. Quis enim tam pie sancteque vivit in terris ut, rationem reddere iussus ad tribunal Dei, causam suam defendere possit, si velit Deus omnia exigere quae meritissimo atque optimo iure ei debentur? Si iniquitates observaveris, Domine, Domine, quis sustinebit? Quemadmodum enim is dicitur non iustificari in iudicio apud aliquem a quo potest ille multis de rebus iuste accusari, et veris obiectis criminibus quaeque negari non possint convinci, ita et, Deo nobiscum expostulante vel nobis ipsis iudicibus, convincemur iniusti.

Fourth interpretation. That phrase, “no one is justified in the sight of God,” ought to be understood not simply, but with that adjunct which David had just placed before, saying: “Enter not into judgment with thy servant.” A man can, then, be justified before God, if God deal mercifully with him and not contend with him by the utmost right and rigor of justice. For just as David said that no one is justified before God, so Paul said, in Romans 2, that the doers of the law are justified before God; and of Zachariah and Elizabeth, Luke wrote that they were just before God. Therefore, if God should call a man into judgment and conduct an inquiry into his life and morals, with no mercy mitigating the severity of the judgment, undoubtedly anyone whatever would be found unjust and guilty. For who lives so piously and holily on earth that, ordered to render an account at the tribunal of God, he could defend his cause, if God should wish to exact all that is owed to him by the most just and best right? “If thou shalt mark iniquities, Lord, Lord, who shall stand it?” For just as one is said not to be justified in judgment before someone by whom he can justly be accused of many things, and convicted by true charges laid against him which cannot be denied, so too, when God expostulates with us, or with ourselves as judges, we shall be convicted as unjust.¹⁴

Nam praeter debita gratitudinis, quae nemo satis exolvere Deo potest, ea quoque debita quae divino praecepto persolvere tenemur nemo perfecte persolvit. Quid quod omnes inveniuntur fecisse multa quae facta non oportuit, et contra non fecisse multa quae facta esse oportebat? Audi B. Augustinum in Sermone 49 De Tempore: Quid est, inquit, Non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo? Non stes mecum in iudicio, exigendo a me omnia quae praecepisti; nam me invenies reum si in iudicium intravero tecum. Opus est ergo misericordia tua potius quam liquidissimo iudicio tuo. Ad hanc interpretationem facit quod dixit Iob capite nono: Si voluerit homo contendere cum Deo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille. Quantus sum ego ut respondeam ei et loquar verbis meis cum eo? Qui etiam si habuero quippiam iustum, non respondebo, sed meum iudicem deprecabor. Si iustificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me; si innocentem ostendero, pravum me comprobabit. Verebar omnia opera mea, sciens quod non parceres delinquenti. Si lotus fuero quasi aquis nivis, et fulserint velut mundissimae manus meae, tamen sordibus intinges me, et abominabuntur me vestimenta mea. Neque enim viro qui similis mei est respondebo, nec qui mecum in iudicio ex aequo possit audiri. Haec ibi.

For besides the debts of gratitude, which no one can sufficiently discharge to God, those debts too which by divine precept we are bound to pay, no one perfectly pays. What of the fact that all are found to have done many things which ought not to have been done, and, on the contrary, not to have done many things which ought to have been done? Hear the blessed Augustine in Sermon 49 On the Season: “What is, ‘Enter not into judgment with thy servant’? Stand not with me in judgment, exacting from me all that thou hast commanded; for thou wilt find me guilty if I enter into judgment with thee. There is need, therefore, of thy mercy rather than of thy most pure judgment.” To this interpretation makes what Job said in chapter nine: “If a man should wish to contend with God, he could not answer him one for a thousand. What am I, that I should answer him and speak my words with him? Even if I have anything just, I will not answer, but will entreat my judge. If I wish to justify myself, my own mouth will condemn me; if I show myself innocent, he will prove me wicked. I feared all my works, knowing that thou wouldst not spare the offender. If I be washed as it were with snow waters, and my hands shine as most clean, yet thou wilt dip me in filth, and my own garments will abhor me. For I shall not answer a man who is like myself, nor one who could be heard with me in judgment on equal terms.” Thus there.¹⁵

Verum de diluendis Haereticorum obiectionibus hactenus dictum sit satis. Nam argumentari iustorum hominum multa esse bona opera nec huius loci est, et, quia evidens est in sacris litteris, videtur supervacaneum. Certe qui hoc negant Haeretici magnam iniuriam faciunt Christi gratiae, quasi ea non fuerit efficax purgandi hominem a peccatis et bona opera faciendi, cum tamen Paulus dicat ad Titum 2 Christum dedisse semetipsum pro nobis ut nos redimeret ab omni iniquitate et mundaret sibi populum acceptabilem, sectatorem bonorum operum; et sexcentis locis clamat scriptura Deum redditurum unicuique secundum opera sua. Nam procedent qui bona fecerunt, ait Dominus apud Ioannem, in resurrectionem vitae, qui vero mala egerint in resurrectionem iudicii. Quamobrem merito hic error haereticorum damnatus fuit in Concilio Tridentino in sessione 6 quae est de Iustificatione cap. 11, illis verbis: Constat Orthodoxae doctrinae adversari qui dicunt iustum in omni bono opere saltem venialiter peccare, aut, quod intolerabilius est, etiam aeternas poenas mereri.

But on dissolving the objections of the heretics, let what has been said thus far suffice. For to argue that the works of just men are many and good is neither the place here, and, because it is evident in the sacred writings, seems superfluous. Certainly the heretics who deny this do great injury to the grace of Christ, as though it were not effective for cleansing man from sins and doing good works — whereas Paul says to Titus 2 that Christ gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and cleanse to himself an acceptable people, a follower of good works; and in six hundred places Scripture cries out that God will render to each according to his works. “For they shall come forth,” says the Lord in John, “who have done good, unto the resurrection of life; but they who have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” Wherefore this error of the heretics was deservedly condemned in the Council of Trent, in Session 6, which is on Justification, ch. 11, in these words: “It is established that they contradict the orthodox doctrine who say that the just man, in every good work, sins at least venially, or — what is more intolerable — even merits eternal punishments.”¹⁶

Translator’s notes

Heading of the Fifth Disputation. ↩
§138: the heretics’ argument from Gen 6:5 (Luther, condemned article 31). Margin: Matt. 7. ↩
§139: their two further proof-texts — Isaiah 64 and Psalm 142. Margin: Rom. 2. ↩
§140 (continues on p. 130): the heretics are like Sisyphus. Margin: Cicero, Tusculans, bk. 1. ↩
§140 (continued from p. 129): the heretics labor in vain; let us show the three texts do not favor them. ↩
§141: the threefold reply to the Moses text — hyperbole; only the pre-Flood men; only the impious. Noah excepted. ↩
§142: the reply to Isaiah 64 — of the wicked Jews; their ‘justices’ are legal observances void of grace. Margin: ‘The passage of Isaiah, ch. 64.’ ↩
§143 (continues on p. 131): that Isaiah numbers himself among the sinners is a prophetic custom of humility/charity, not an admission. Margin: Jeremiah. ↩
§143 (continued from p. 130): Jeremiah and other prophets number themselves with sinners; such general statements are not to be taken universally. Margins: Micah 7; Jeremiah 8. ↩
§144: the reply to Psalm 142 — patristic sources, and the first of four interpretations (no merit before God is owed of strict right). Margins: Augustine; Jerome; Gregory; Theodoret; Arnobius; Isa. 40; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 4. ↩
§145: the second interpretation — none is reckoned just compared with God (with the two Job texts). Margins: Augustine; Job (4 and 25). ↩
§146: the third interpretation — none is wholly and altogether just (even the just sin in lighter matters). Margins: Matt. 6; Eccles. 7; 3 Kings (1 Kings) 8. ↩
§147: a passage of Gregory supporting this — even the innocent slip in vain or perverse thought. Margin: Gregory. ↩
§148 (continues on p. 133): the fourth interpretation — taken with ‘enter not into judgment’; under strict justice all are found guilty. Margins: Luke 1; Ps. 129. ↩
§149: no one perfectly pays the debts owed to God — Augustine (Sermon 49) and Job 9. Margins: Augustine; Job 9. ↩
§150: conclusion against the heretics — that the just do many good works is evident; the error condemned at Trent (Session 6, On Justification, ch. 11). Margins: John 5; Council of Trent. ↩