De consiliis

De consiliis

This is a serious and impious error made by the Sophists, as they taught that, according to divine law, one does not necessarily have to demand anything from God, but only to suggest that if someone wishes, they may comply and thus free themselves from the danger of not complying. They review, however, the advice that is mostly found in Chapter V. According to Matthew: love your enemies, do not resist evil, be unaware of disputes and conflicts in the courts, strive to do good to those who deserve ill, give, lend to anyone in need, even in desperate circumstances. We say that all these things must be required and that we count them among the commandments. For Christ openly condemns those who do not love anyone but their friends, equating them with the Gentiles and tax collectors. Moreover, anyone who gets angry with a neighbor or who despises a neighbor makes themselves guilty of judgment. If the precepts of the new law are understood to be given regarding those things that are necessary to achieve the end of eternal happiness, to which the new law directly leads; then the counsel must be about those things through which a person can better and more efficiently reach the intended goal. Since the new law is a law of freedom, and the counsel is left to the free opinion of the one to whom it is given, it is fitting that in the new law there are counsels that better and more efficiently guide a person. Luther had opposition. XII, etc. , Köstlin I. Just as Melanchthon did with the Parisian theologians. I: We must acknowledge that the commentary of scholastic theology, which began to demand divine law according to Aristotelian philosophy, has been redefined according to the desires it wished to impose on God's laws. Digitized by Google Loci commones. He was only consulting, so that we wouldn't become angry; what was the judgment that was never-ending? If it's free to be angry at someone who offends you or not to be angry, why was punishment being threatened? If someone inflicts punishment, they don't act wisely. Moreover, since the command is to love your neighbor, doesn't love encompass all those things that these people count among their plans? And Paul writes to the Romans: These things are summed up in the law: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. And this is the commandment: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Children, let us not love in word or speech, but in action and truth; that is, let us love sincerely from the heart and show our love through our efforts and duties. Now, if they count among the laws what is written: 'You shall not covet,' etc.^✦ Why don't they consider these things as laws? Is it necessary to desire something, to be angry with an enemy, to seek revenge, or to refuse to risk money when dealing with the poor? Therefore, let these things be commanded, since it seems that they should be commanded, so that we desire nothing. So why do they interpret the whole law as counsel, when they actually disregard part of it? But you might say: It concerns my personal matter if it must be given to anyone. I respond that this is disguised by your own desires. . The Spirit will easily judge how much should be given, and it will gladly take care of its own, as long as help is provided for the brother in need. Don't you know that you should do for your neighbor what you would want done for yourself? We'll be liable for all injuries if we're not allowed to seek vengeance. That's right. This life is a life of the cross, so you will be subject to injuries. They will take our evil, if it is not allowed to repeat in judgment. The magistrate should take care to prevent any harm from being done by one citizen to another; it is your duty to consider this kind of situation wisely. But what am I trying to do, to undermine the arguments of carnal wisdom, when it can never prove the divine law, except for the one who is spiritual? What Christ commanded, you won't understand unless you choose to do it. They also imposed such carnal arguments on the Sophists, since it seemed somewhat uncivil to make all wealth so common that no one could claim their own. It was also considered inhuman for the lazy to enjoy leisure if they could safely benefit from the resources of others. From these precepts, plans have been made, and a most harmful opinion has been accepted: that public affairs cannot be managed according to the Gospel, as if something like this could be handed down in the name of God. It is a serious matter that Christ's teachings apply to only a few monks and not to all of humanity. What could be more universal than the Gospel that Christ commanded to be preached to all of humanity? Augustine also addressed this in his letter. In the fifth letter of Augustine's correspondence to Marcellinus, this type of carnal slander is condemned as contrary to the law, which prohibits vengeance. Moreover, it does not forbid crimes to be punished by authorities. Indeed, they wield the sword to terrify evildoers, as the Apostle says in Romans. It says in XIII, but it forbids us not to be driven by a desire for revenge against one another. It's the duty of the authorities to take care that the community doesn't suffer any harm. It's your duty to bear and conceal a private injury. Perhaps this matter will be discussed more thoroughly below. There is, however, in the Gospel writings a single counsel regarding celibacy, of which Christ said: "Whoever can accept this should accept it."^✦ Matthew. And in I. Corinth. Paul says: I don't have a command from the Lord about virgins, but I give my counsel as one who has received mercy from the Lord, so that I may be faithful. I think this is good because of the pressing need, since it is good for a person to remain as they are. If you're bound to a wife, don't seek to be free; if you're free from a wife, don't seek a wife. But it's not worth debating whether counsel is superior to commandments. These are the foolish ideas of the Scholastics, who neither understood what a commandment was nor what a counsel is. For one does not fulfill the commandment against adultery, no matter how celibate one may be, when it is not possible to avoid stirring up desire, no matter how pure. But according to the command, desire is forbidden to those who can respond more closely than some married people do to virgins elsewhere.