Vis peccati et fructus

Vis peccati et fructus

The older Pelagians can be refuted with less effort than the new Pelagians of our time, who, although they don't deny the existence of original sin, still deny that it has the power of original sin, so that all human actions and efforts are sins. Therefore, we will speak a bit more extensively about the power and energy of original sin. Original sin is a certain living energy that bears no fruit in any part of us at any time, but only brings forth vices. For when a person's mind isn't stirred by evil desires, in which there are things that are most terrible and foul, are they not even caught in them? Greed, ambition, hatred, envy, rivalry, the flames of lust, anger — who hasn’t felt these at some point? Few people recognize the arrogance, pride, pharisaical pretension, contempt for God, distrust in God, blasphemy, and rare affections that exist within them. There are those who live in the most honorable appearance, and Paul himself testifies that he lived this way before he came to know Christ, so that he could not be reproached. They have nothing to rejoice about, since their souls are bound to the most shameful and miserable things, which they do not even perceive. What good is it, if God were to open their eyes at death, so they could see their own faults and their own diseases? Don't you understand what it says in Isaiah 40: All human glory is like the grass of the field?^✦ You see how deep it is, indeed how inscrutable the wickedness of the human heart is. And our scholars are not yet ashamed to teach the justice of works, to teach satisfactions and philosophical virtues. Let it be, whatever is of the living saints. These are called the three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. In Socrates, there was constancy; in Xenocrates, chastity; in Zeno, temperance. However, because these were found in impure souls, in fact, these shadows of virtue arose from a love of self, stemming from self-love, and should not be considered true virtues, but rather vices. Socrates was tolerant, but he loved glory or at least took pleasure in his virtue. Cato was strong, but he was driven by a love of glory. However, God has poured out such shadows of virtues upon the nations, upon the wicked, in which He does not give otherwise than in form, wealth, and similar gifts. And when all of human reason marvels at this external appearance of virtue and its mask, our false pseudotheologians commend to us philosophical studies and the merits of external works based on a blind judgment of nature. But what do philosophers teach in general, even those who teach best, except trust and love for us? Cicero, in his work on the ends of good and evil, evaluates the essence of virtue based on self-love. How much pride and arrogance there is in Plato! It's not easy to achieve such forms, wealth, and similar gifts. False participation. The power of sin and its fruit. It seems possible that one might contract some fault from that Platonic ambition if a keen and intense mind falls into its study. Aristotle's teaching is essentially a certain desire for conflict, so much so that it hardly seems appropriate to even include him among the writers of moral philosophy. But we will speak about philosophy later in relation to the laws. And so that I might gather everything together as in a summary, all people are truly and always sinners and they sin through the powers of nature. Genes. Every desire of the thoughts of the human heart is vain and wicked at all times. And the same point is repeated: the thoughts and intentions of the human heart are corrupt from childhood. Where we read, 'the heart is inclined to evil,' although this is not far from the truth, I would prefer to affirm simply, based on clearer teaching, that man is indeed wicked. Let no one deceive me with the idea that since inclination or tendency is not an act, it cannot be sin; for this is how foolish sophists reason. Esai. All hypocrites are wicked, and their mouths speak foolishness. Again, Isaiah. Behold, all things are vain and empty works, their plans are like wind and emptiness. Again, Isaiah. All of us, like sheep, have gone astray; each of us has turned to our own way.^✦ And the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all. In this place, the prophet, with a clear prophecy, revealed the story of Christ's passion and its fruit, when he foretold that Christ would suffer such things, so that he might be seen as the most abject of all men, and for this reason he would suffer, to justify many, since we are all plainly sinners and cannot be justified in any other way except through faith in him, who responds poorly to the Hebrews. Listen, Luther rebukes those who speak against Christ. And concerning those who want to be justified by their own strength and works, not through faith in Christ, it is said: 'He will give the wicked for burial and the rich for their death.' Indeed, strength divides spoils. For the wicked, the wealthy, and the strong are clearly the advocates of human justice, free will, and the virtues of philosophy, but they are ignorant of Christ. You see how briefly Isaiah described the full power of the Gospel. But you, Christ, grant us your Spirit, who will open and explain these mysteries to us. Now let us listen to David, who, although he feels the same in many places, still says that every man is a liar. XIII. This is what he says when he speaks: "There is no God." The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'; they are corrupt and have done abominable things in their pursuits. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'; they are corrupt and have done abominable things in their pursuits. There is no one who does good. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of Adam to see if there are any who understand or seek God. Everyone has turned away; together they have become worthless. No one does good; not even one. Look, it doesn't accuse a person of simple faults, but of the most atrocious crimes, of impiety, disbelief, foolishness, hatred, and contempt for God, which no one can recognize except by the Spirit. What’s going on here, you hypocritical theologians? What are the works of free will that you claim we can achieve through our own human strength? You claim that original sin cannot be denied by you, and yet you teach that a person can do something good by their own strength. Can a bad tree bear good fruit? Do you not see how this prophet describes a tree with its fruits, not only speaking of the foolish heart but also of all human pursuits, plans, desires, works, and efforts? You see, then, how differently human philosophy and sacred scripture judge a person. Philosophy only looks at the outward appearances of people. Sacred Scripture observes the most profound and incomprehensible affections, by which, when a person is governed, they judge actions based on the nature of those affections. And when we seek in all our actions, it is necessary that they truly be sins. And not to mention the most intense desires, isn't it true that some people who seem to live well are drawn to such behaviors out of a disdain for worldly things, while others are motivated by the fear of sin and its consequences, some by ambition, and others by a desire for peace? For these reasons, which once seemed better to philosophers and now are common among many people, some are driven by a feigned fear of divine punishments, while others have their own reasons. Who can truly unravel the labyrinth of the human heart? Especially since there is such a variety of feelings as there is of minds. Who among all people, by nature, would not prefer to indulge their impulses and would not find it hard to be restrained by law? But if you don't feel it now, it doesn't matter; for you will certainly feel it when your soul is constrained by the law to suppress its desires. Furthermore, Joan. To all who received him, he gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. You see that blood, the will of man, the will of the flesh, and everything that is of the strength of nature is condemned; but truly, sons are born again from God. And to skip over many places, which the attentive reader will observe for themselves, Joan. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. It happens that it needs to be refuted that these impious sophists here babble, as they dilute such clear statements, claiming that according to human nature, one cannot act well in a meritorious way. Therefore, they invent a double good, one that is meritorious and one that is not, and in this way, they avoid having to argue against those external virtues of free will, which are mere shadows of a safe man. Is it impiety to say that there are two kinds of good: one that merits eternal life and another that does not? You should certainly feel this way: nothing good or meritorious can come from a person through the powers of nature. Since Scripture says that every desire of the human heart is vain and wicked. Indeed, what is vain and wicked is not only not a merit for eternal life — for I must use their words — but it is also not good. Thus David says in the Psalms. All humans are liars. Esai. All are hypocrites, and the whole world is a tomb of foolishness. Look, he doesn't just say it's not meritorious, but clearly it's evil. Furthermore, from what we have discussed so far and what we will note shortly, anyone can easily refute this kind of nonsense on their own. The wicked philosophers did not judge actions based on the affections of the heart, but rather philosophically assessed them based on their own criteria, which was the reason they were led astray. Paul, in almost all his letters, especially in those written to the Romans and Galatians, what else does he do but teach that sin or vice is nothing other than all human actions and efforts? You have a reference to the third chapter of Romans (v. ...) As it is written, all people are under sin, and this is magnificently and splendidly taught by the testimonies of the prophets. In the eighth chapter, after he had argued that the law cannot be made by us, he compares the flesh and the spirit, teaching that the flesh is completely subject to sin, but the spirit is life and peace. Here, the Sophists call the flesh a sensitive appetite, forgetting the phrases and tropes of Scripture. For it is not the body, a part of man, but the whole man—both soul and body—that Scripture signifies by the voice of the flesh; and whenever it is joined with the spirit, it signifies the best and most excellent powers of human nature, apart from the Holy Spirit. Again, the spirit signifies the very Spirit. Köstlin a. It's about sin. The holy and its movements and works are within us. Thus John. What is born of the flesh is flesh; what is born of the Spirit is spirit. And John. "You judge according to the flesh." And Cenes. The spirit will remain in man because he is flesh. Therefore, we must understand the term 'camis' in relation to all the powers of human nature. Otherwise, Paul's arguments wouldn't be consistent throughout the entire letter to the Romans. This is how the argument usually goes: The flesh couldn't fulfill the law, so it is the Spirit's work that must accomplish it. If we only take the flesh as a part of humanity, how will Paul's argument hold up? For this could be evaded in this way: Even if the flesh could not fulfill the law, some better part of humanity could have done so, and thus the spirit would not have needed to fulfill the law. Indeed, we have learned not only the teachings of Scripture but also the words of the philosophers, and as it is written in Ezra, we have taken foreign wives and have adopted their customs. Therefore, use the term 'camis' in reference to the best strengths of human nature and the most beautiful efforts of that nature. The fruit of the flesh is as beautiful as the virtue of Socrates or Cato, just as it is as vile as the murders of Caesar. The fruits of the flesh are the most beautiful virtues of Paul, which he possessed before he recognized Christ, more so than the adulteries of Clodius. If you violate the word of Scripture, Melauthons Loci. ® Digitized by Google Loci commune«. What we call flesh here, we often refer to as the old man, which also signifies whatever is of human nature's strength. What this term clearly indicates is that it refers to something specific. For it seems that one lacks common sense who wishes to be called by the name of the old man in a way that only refers to the part of a human being. Who, after hearing the term 'man,' would understand it to mean only the body? However, Paul uses the terms of the old man, the flesh, and the body of sin indiscriminately. The outer person signifies exactly what the old person or flesh does, which is not just the external parts of a person, but all the natural powers of a person. And regarding the divisions of man below, where I will discuss grace, I will say more. Now it’s enough to remind you what the flesh signifies. Those who think there’s anything good in a person whom the Holy Spirit hasn’t restored and purified are mistaken. Therefore, let us examine Paul's statement about the natural powers of humanity, his words (Rom. , ) I submit: The impossibility of the law (because it was weak through the flesh) God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit). So far, Paul has proposed the essence of the matter, namely that, since it is impossible for the law to be fulfilled by us because we are fleshly, God sent His Son so that He might fulfill the law through us, which the law could not achieve, since it was weak through the flesh. He follows this translation in the annotations, without which Paul's letter cannot be adequately understood. . -There in the most venerable or memorable of all against the proponents of sin. While we live in the flesh, we are dead in spirit. What does the flesh call for here? For since it is clear that the spirit is called the Holy Spirit and his motions and impulses, it necessarily follows that the flesh speaks whatever in us is alien to the Holy Spirit. The Apostle explains the reasoning behind the proposed statements: Those who live according to the flesh focus on what belongs to the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit focus on what belongs to the Spirit. For the desire of the flesh is death, but the desire of the Spirit is life and peace. Look, that's why the law can't be fulfilled through the flesh! For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, as if to say: You Pharisees and hypocrites think you can fulfill the law by your own strength! You seem to act well, as if you were endowed with the most beautiful virtues. But all these things are just a facade. For since you are in the flesh, you seek your own, either out of fear of punishment or out of love for comfort, or for some other carnal desire. It's not possible for any sense of God to be in you while you are in the flesh. Therefore, you cannot desire or strive for what belongs to God. Who is it, even if he seems good in appearance, that loves God so much that he would willingly endure death and hell if God wished it? It cannot be said how much and how great things the Apostle has comprehended in such a brief verse in Romans. Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh. On the contrary, those who live according to the Spirit seek what belongs to the Spirit; that is, in whom the Holy Spirit has been poured out, there is a sense of God, trust in God, and love of God, just as in the flesh, one seeks only what is contrary. The lobes are heavy. You are tempted and filled with hatred for God. What the Apostle wants, as he says in Romans. The desire of the flesh is death, but the desire of the spirit is life and peace. And it follows that the desires of the flesh are enmity against God, for they cannot be subject to the law of God, nor indeed can they ever be. Look, I ask you to consider the conclusion of Paul's epilogue, which states that the entire strength of our flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to the law of God. But if it cannot submit to the law of God, what are we doubting about, what fruit will it bear? Now, he says, not only is he not subject to the law of God, but he can't even submit to it. Therefore, all human actions, however commendable they may seem, are plainly sinful and deserving of death. Let the sophists bring their trivial arguments about the body and spirit, about good and merit, and anything else that resembles such nonsense, if they wish, to twist Paul's teaching to their own ends. What could be clearer than what Paul says: that the justification of the law is not fulfilled except in those who live according to the Spirit? Therefore, those who are not filled with the Holy Spirit do not fulfill the law. But not doing the law, what else is that but to sin? Indeed, sin is every movement and impulse of the mind against the law. Therefore, when the Sophists teach that original sin is the result of having fallen from God's favor and lacking original justice, they should add that, when we are deprived of God's spirit and blessing, we are cursed; when light is absent, we have nothing in us but darkness, blindness, and error; when truth is absent, we have nothing in us but lies; when life is absent, we have nothing in us but sin and death. Thus, Paul explains what he calls the children of wrath in the second chapter of Ephesians.^✦ And we all once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath.^✦ Here, where we will discuss the power of the law, many things can also be applied to this point, so I don't want to linger here any longer. The true nature of sin becomes clear only when the law is revealed, which accuses all people of sin. For Scripture has concluded that everything is under sin, as the apostle writes to the Galatians, so that the promise might be given to those who believe in Jesus Christ.^✦ And from these. You can gather from what we've discussed here what it means regarding human strength, whether there is a freedom that the theologians boast about, claiming it to be true free will, since they decide anything they want without Scripture. For what kind of freedom can there be without the Spirit, when that tyrant of ours, sin, even makes demands on those who are overflowing with the Spirit? Who among the saints has ever lived without lamenting this bondage, indeed this captivity? And Paul says in Romans 7: "I see a law in my members, waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive."^✦ This law of the members is the tyranny of sin, a burning desire and impulse of sin that is innate to us. And concerning these, as we will discuss further below, some are just in spirit, while others are sinners in the flesh. Therefore, it follows that there are things that are impossible, as we will discuss more thoroughly below, which must be considered as commandments. This is what we have presented from the eighth chapter. As it says in Romans: it’s clear that the flesh cannot submit to the law of God. Moreover, as it is said there, it was impossible for the law to justify; that is, the law alone was not enough to show what we should do, but it was also necessary for the Spirit to be given through Christ, who would inspire us to love the law. And here falls that philosophy which claims that it seems a person can fulfill the commandments of the law by their own natural abilities without grace. What is it? It is wrong to speak ill of those whom God has commanded to do something impossible. Jerome himself explains in his dialogues against the Pelagians that what is possible is made impossible by the powers of nature without grace. Common places. The opinion of theologians about moral and free will is both impious and foolish, which the Scotists never fail to proclaim loudly, claiming that the will can conform to every dictate of right reason, that is, that the will can choose whatever right reason prescribes as good and proper. Paul says that it was impossible to justify the law, meaning it wasn't enough to prescribe the law for us to follow, since the flesh is weak and turns away from the law. But here they insisted that they had invented a new kind of will that would produce actions drawn from whatever desires it might have. If they had observed the language and phrasing of Scripture, they would have easily seen that lies and vain thoughts are simply the product of their own reasoning about the actions they have taken. For people can be driven by external forces to act in ways that are not truly their own, but when this happens, it is through pretense and deceit. I can't control myself here, even though I will later speak abundantly about the power of the law, without mentioning the foolish, insipid, and impious arguments of the Sophists that prove we can love God through the powers of nature. For this is how they argue: One can love a lesser good, namely some creature, and therefore one can also love a greater good. So they find no difficulty in joining themselves to such things. This is the teaching of Christians, which Paul wants to be seasoned with salt. Indeed, this is both festive and merely a comment worthy of the theologians, fitting for Aristotle and his followers. First, this is the nature of love: we don't love anything unless it seems good to us, both pleasant and useful; therefore, whatever we love, we love in relation to our own benefit. You love wealth, you love money, not because they are good in themselves, but because they seem useful for your life. So you don't love God, no matter how good He is, unless you feel that He is useful to you in your own interests. Even if you loved God for your own benefit, you'd be loving Him in a servile way, and you'd be sinning in a twisted and perverse manner. But you don't even love like that; for no good can be felt from God unless the heart has been purified and inscribed with the pure and devout goodness of God through the Holy Spirit. But what happens when your conscience shows you that God is angry, threatening you with eternal death and that dreadful moment of His face? Thus, David says. Here, when only the sense of evil is felt, namely the punishments inflicted by God, how can human nature not be moved to consider this, so that it may bear even the punishment of hell with kindness? But when the conscience strikes the mind, it turns away and recoils from God as if He were a cruel executioner and avenger, and, what is most terrible, as if He were unjust. So, Sophists, what do your actions achieve, and what will that remarkable will of yours, which you have imagined, accomplish? Will that day of wrath declare nothing but lies and the empty glory of human free will and all the glory of the flesh be like the glory of hay? Did not Israel tremble and shake with fear at the fire and darkness, even at the very face of Moses, when the law was proclaimed? Was not the earth shaken and trembling, and did not its foundations quake? What does it mean, Psalm? You will set them like a furnace of fire in the time of your face. The day of wrath, that day. The mountains are troubled and shaken, because God is angry with them. But about this matter below, I hope we'll say quite a bit, where we'll discuss the power of the law. You have here, reader, first, not to be loved, unless those things are beneficial. But God does not want to be loved for anyone's benefit; rather, He desires to be loved freely. For someone who loves only their own benefit does not truly love God, but themselves; and Scripture warns us about this misguided love in many places. There’s also another kind of reasoning that isn’t very different from this, which shouldn’t seem absurd, as it teaches us that without the work of the Holy Spirit, we can love God more ardently than we love ourselves, especially since we often face death for fleeting things, for people, for our desires, for our children, and for our spouses. What should be answered here must be gathered from the nature of our affections. First of all, no one is happy to die by nature, especially when their life is at stake for the sake of the republic or for their loved ones; they would much rather live. For indeed, Curtius would prefer to live, and Lucretia would prefer to live. But because human nature so strongly recoils from adversity, it prefers not to exist at all rather than to exist in a bad state. Pyramus wanted to live, but because he thought his life would be miserable without Thisbe, he wanted to end it and, like one with a soul, to put it aside. Saul wanted to live, but out of fear of disgrace and anger, he decided to end his life, as the words of Thomas Aquinas demonstrate. First. What good is it to you to ask? To love God above all things is something natural to humanity. This love is not only for rational beings but also for irrational and even inanimate creatures, according to the kind of love that each creature can possess. Once life is finished, it breaks off all adversities. But what am I trying to do, giving an exact account of my feelings, when these rare examples, like those of Lucretia, Saul, and others, are wonders of divine majesty? Now, the Sophists have claimed that we deserve grace based on our good works, which are in line with our natural abilities. You, reader, understand that such statements are blasphemous and an insult to the grace of God. Even with human nature, it is still true. Even those evil things that happen, He Himself ordains according to His own wisdom, because of a certain equality of proportion. The powers that come from the Holy Spirit cannot act without sin. What good is it to us in our efforts, unless we face anger? Simulations and lies are those actions that are elicited, those fictitious proposals, which they falsely call good intentions, as prescribed by the sophists. Therefore, it is far from us that we might obtain grace through them, so that nothing stands in opposition to grace like those Pharisaical preparations. Moreover, Paul fiercely attacks this impiety, as he does elsewhere, particularly in his entire letter to the Romans, stating that grace is not grace if it is given based on works. What place is there for mercy if it depends on our works? What is the glory of grace, if I may use Paul's words, if it is owed to our works? Clearly, Paul teaches in the third chapter of Romans that all people are under sin and can be justified freely through faith in those who believe.^✦ What is it that you seek? IX. , it is said that Israel, in pursuing the law of righteousness, did not attain it; that is, those who, by their own free will and strength, attempted to fulfill the law, never actually kept the law but only pretended to do so outwardly. Isaiah the prophet says, He invites everyone to come to Christ freely to buy without cost. Come, buy without silver and without any work of a just man, so that the grace of the Holy Spirit (whose dignity is infinite) may proceed, as the merit of eternal life is rightly given: yet it is not merited according to worth, since it proceeds from his free will, because of the greatest inequality: although it is fitting that God should act according to the virtue of the man working, it is according to worth that it is possible. What good is it to you to know many things, if you lack the grace of God? Sin is a great evil, and its consequences are dire. Wine and milk are changed. Why do you spend your money on what isn't food, and your labor on what doesn't satisfy? So, why do you trust in your own works, which will ultimately fail you? Listen, you who are listening to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in abundance. Incline your ear, that is, believe, and your soul will live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the faithful mercies promised to David, that is, I will promise you mercy like that shown to David, that is, a steadfast promise. Hierem. Cursed is the person who trusts in human beings, who relies on their own strength and turns away from the Lord. For he will be like a tamarisk in the desert; he won’t see when good comes, but will dwell in the parched places, in the wilderness, in a salt land that is uninhabited. Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord; the Lord will be his confidence. He will be like a tree planted by the waters, sending out its roots toward the stream; when the heat comes, it will not fear.^✦ See the rest. For that one prophet's head clearly proves that moral actions are nothing but our own simulations and lies. This pertains to the fact that scholastic theology has constructed its understanding of penance from its beginnings and from the concept of attrition. For this reason, it is not about Tert. Sorrow is a pain taken on for sins committed. I, however, am not perfect in my sorrow for sins. Sorrow, however, is perfected through grace. Nature feels pain from sin only when it loves itself and fears punishment; this self-love and fear of punishment are clearly sins, and it's impossible not to bring along hatred for the one who inflicts those punishments, namely God. The knowledge and hatred of sin is indeed a unique work of God within us. The Lord leads down to the underworld and brings back; the Lord kills and makes alive. The Lord. Hannah says in her song, "He humbles and He lifts up." I have repented and so on. So, what good is it to linger here, when it has been clearly stated by Christ? No one can come to me unless my Father draws them. However, those who cite the Lord's statement from Zechariah, unaware of the tropes and figures of sacred discourse, are mistaken: "Return to me, and I will return to you." This does not mean that the beginning of repentance is solely up to us.^✦ Augustine has addressed this statement not in just one place, nor is it truly obscure, except to those sophists who have learned nothing beyond trivial logicalities. There are two aspects to God's conversion toward us: one precedes our repentance, and the other follows it. What comes first is what happens when God makes us turn back to Him through the breath of His Spirit, when He shows us our sin and terrifies and disturbs us. But what follows is conversion. It is fitting, since it brings about the measure and end of punishments, that it also comforts us and openly declares that it favors us. Zacharias speaks of the latter, saying, "Turn to me, and I will turn to you."^✦ Löscher a. Therefore, there are now four parts of repentance: namely, attrition, confession, contrition, and satisfaction. Digitized by Google I V On sin. I will gather you together, that is, repent, and I will put an end to your punishment. The prophet urges those who have returned from exile in Assyria to heed the example of their ancestors and repent, lest they again face divine wrath and suffer similar punishments. Therefore, it cannot be said that the beginning of repentance is in our hands. He invites us and draws us to himself, and wherever he leads us, forgiving our sins, he declares that he is at peace with us and reconciled. And what He commands is this: 'Return to me.' It doesn't follow that it is within our power to repent or convert ourselves. Just as it is commanded that one should be loved above all things, it does not follow that this is within our power to achieve, because it is commanded. But because it commands this, it isn't within our power. For He commands impossible things in this, that He may commend His mercy to us, as we will discuss later regarding the law. And why didn't the Sophists in Zechariah's prophecy observe this same sentiment? X is contained: And I will turn them back, because I will have mercy on them, and they will be as they were when I did not cast them away. Behold, he says he will turn to Judah, not because of their good deeds, but because of his own mercy. I commend similar places to your diligence, Christian reader. It will be that, when you become more familiar with the Scriptures, you'll easily dismiss any clever arguments of the sophists. You have, reader, to speak about the power of the innate plague, as it seems to me. Those who want to be formed more by the reading and meditation of divine scriptures than by human commentaries will require no more than this. For no amount of reasoning can satisfy those whose minds are confused by uncertain debates and the varying opinions of people, and who understand nothing but worldly matters. There is one who is the same, as the simplest, the most certain teacher, the divine spirit, who expressed himself both closely and simply in the sacred scriptures; in them, when your mind has been transformed, then at last you will understand the essence of this place as clearly and precisely as you do that of other theological matters. Those who depend not on the Spirit, but on human judgment and estimation, see not the things themselves, but only faint shadows of things, and not otherwise than those in the Platonic cave. Who, then, has seen the true form of virtue or vice, whether among philosophers or among the theologians of the schools? The theologians measured original sin only by external actions, while they did not see the malice of the soul and the hidden sickness within. And while they may recognize the wickedness of certain affections, not everyone or even all of them perceive the reasoning behind it, with whom the spirit is at war, namely blasphemy, hatred of God, love of self, distrust in God, and countless other similar things that are so deeply rooted in humanity that they do not only cling to one part, specifically the sensitive appetite, as some teach, but have taken captive the whole nature. They call these affections a weakness, but it's a weakness that can be overcome by human strength. Scripture does not deny that the passions of the flesh can be overcome except by the Spirit of God, because those whom the Son has set free are truly free. Only then are they truly free, as John says. VIII. Therefore, let nothing of those external things move you, whether they are the products of your will or similar matters. God judges by the heart, not by external actions. For God sees not as man sees.^✦ So it’s worth considering how much harm philosophy has caused to Christian matters, especially when our theologians have followed it and created a persona of good works that resembles the external actions of others, which in reality merit nothing, or even that singular teaching in the Gospel about foolishness. The parable teaches about virgins. Nothing, in fact, do the virgins signify except for a Pharisaic kind of righteousness, which is to say, the shadows of external works. But what else do philosophers teach except for external actions? And when they argue about virtues, do they not refer everything to external actions and those fictitious acts they create? But they are blind, and the leaders are blind as well. Therefore, we should ask God to lift our souls from the judgment of human reason and philosophy to a spiritual judgment. For the blindness of human reason makes it impossible for us to know the form of sin or justice apart from the light of the absolute spirit. . The whole of human reason is held captive in darkness. The Spirit of Christ is the light that teaches all truth. The flesh or human reason cannot fix its gaze on the radiant face of Moses; therefore, a veil covers the law and judges only based on external works or fictitious intentions, as they call them, or on the letter, as I would use Paul's words. The Spirit truly searches and penetrates all things. And so, as for what we've written about original sin, I'll present a summary of it in a few words, laying out several theses, like a guide for the higher matters. Sin is a desire that goes against the law of God. Since we are children of wrath, it happens that we are born without the Spirit of God. Since the Spirit of God is not in a person, they understand nothing but what is earthly, love only what is earthly, and seek only what is earthly. Therefore, in a person, there is contempt and ignorance of God, along with all kinds of vices. The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' So it is that a person, through natural powers, can do nothing but sin. For it's not just a part of human nature, which they call the sensitive appetite, that is subject to the affections of sin. Since Scripture testifies that the heart is unclean, it follows that all human powers are impure. For the heart signifies not only the sensitive part, as some call it, but also the seat of all affections, loves, hatreds, blasphemies, and unbelief. Just as the heart signifies the seat of all human emotions, so too does the flesh represent all the natural powers of a human being. The things that are carnal, whatever comes from the powers of nature—like the steadfastness of Socrates or the moderation of Zeno—are nothing but carnal affections. Once in his earlier letter to the Corinthians, Paul called it the work of the animal part of reason, to pursue philosophical virtues. Moreover, it is clear that sin leads to condemnation. The flesh never calls anything in us, no matter how good it may seem, without the work of the Holy Spirit, as is evident. For it is written in Romans. , as it says: "the justification of the law could not be fulfilled through the flesh." Who doesn't see that here the strongest powers of humanity are signified by the term 'flesh,' which seem to be able to obey the law according to human judgment? The same thing teaches and is the third head of the latter epistle. To the Corinthians. What I wanted to point out is that the Scholastics shouldn't impose on anyone the distinction between intellectual and sensitive appetites, as they attribute disordered affections to the senses while freeing the intellectual appetite from fault. The arguments of the Scholastics are sufficiently refuted by those passages of Scripture we cited above. They cannot be helped by Origen, as they wish to appear, when he discusses the soul, flesh, and spirit. What does it matter to us what Origen thinks, since we are debating the Scriptures, not Origen's opinion? The reason the Scholastics deny that all human actions are sins is that they only fix their eyes on the notes that arise from the text. He speaks of a human being who is led and lives by natural powers and natural affections. Again, the spirit signifies whatever is animated by the Spirit of God and is drawn by spiritual movements and affections. The spirit signifies whatever is animated by the Spirit of God and is drawn by spiritual movements and affections. They did not judge the external actions of Moses as worthy of merit. But God judges the heart and affections. The same reason was why they imagined free will. For they saw that there was a certain freedom in external actions. For the flesh judges based on external actions. The Spirit teaches that all things necessarily happen according to predestination. Experience teaches that there is no freedom in disordered affections. Once everything in the Scriptures began to be referred to external actions, the entire Scripture became obscured, and there was no understanding of what sin is, what grace is, what the law is, what the gospel is, what Moses is, or what Christ is. We must acknowledge that these shadows are worse than the darkness of Egypt, as they stem from the impious and dreadful philosophy of the Scholastics. What is that impurity, wickedness, and malice that we call original sin, which all the saints lament, so that reason may not feel it? It will become evident when the law is revealed, that is, when God opens the eyes of your conscience, as we will discuss further about the law below. We should also discuss the fruits of sin, that is, the various kinds of vices. So too, in the letter. The Apostle reviewed the works of the flesh in Galatians; but each person will recognize them for themselves. For a Christian, it's enough to know that all the works of nature, all the impulses and efforts of human strength, are sins. Now, who can possibly review all the passions, if we evaluate the types of vices based on their affections, which is what should be done? Otherwise, how can those who judge the forms of virtues and vices based on the outward appearance of actions discern how often they confuse virtues for vices and vices for virtues? Therefore, we will leave judgment of these matters to each person's spirit.