The Divinity of the Schoolmen
When a man does any good work, God accepts it, and for that good work he pours into him charity. This infused charity (say they) is a quality grafted in the heart, and this they call formal righteousness (which manner of speaking it is expedient for you to know:) and they can abide nothing less than to hear that this quality furnishing the soul as whiteness does the wall, should not be counted righteousness. They can climb no higher than to this cogitation of man's reason: that man is righteous by his own formal righteousness, which is grace making him acceptable to God, that is to say, love or charity. So to this quality cleaving to the soul, that is to wit, charity (which is a work after the law, for the law says: You shall love the Lord your God, etc.) they attribute formal righteousness, and they say that this righteousness is worthy of everlasting life, and he that has it, is formally righteous: and moreover he is effectually or actually righteous, because he now does good works, to which everlasting life is due. This is the opinion of the Schoolmen, indeed even of the best among them.
Some other there be which are not so good, as Scotus and Occam, which said that for the obtaining of the grace of God, this charity infused or given of God, is not necessary: but that a man even by his own natural strength may procure this charity above all things. For so reasons Scotus: If a man may love a creature, a young man a maiden, a covetous man money, which are the lesser good, he may also love God which is the greater good. If he has a love of the creature through his natural strength, much more has he a love of the creator. With this argument were all the Sophists convicted, and none of them all was able to solve it. Notwithstanding thus they reply.
The scripture compels us to confess (say they) that God, besides that natural love and charity which is engrafted in us, (with which alone he is not contented) requires also charity which he himself gives. And hereby they accuse God as a tyrant and a cruel exactor, who is not content that we keep and fulfill his law, but above the law, which we are of ourselves able to fulfill, requires also that we should accomplish it with other circumstance and furniture, as apparel to the same. As if a mistress should not be contented that her cook had dressed her meat excellently well, but should chide her for that she did not prepare the same, being decked with precious apparel and having a crown of gold upon her head. What a mistress were this, who besides that which her cook was only bound to do and also exactly performed, would require moreover precious apparel or a crown of gold which she could not have? Even so, what a one should God be if he should require his law to be fulfilled of us (which otherwise by our own natural strength we observe and fulfill) with such furniture as we cannot have?
But here lest they should seem to avouch contrary things, they make a distinction, and say that the law is fulfilled two manner of ways: first according to the substance of the deed, and secondly according to the mind of the commander. According to the substance of the deed (say they) we may fulfill all things which the law commands, but not according to the meaning of the commander, which is, that God is not contented that you have done all things which are commanded in the law, although he can require no more of you: but he yet further requires, that you should fulfill the law in charity: not that charity which you have by nature, but that which is above nature and heavenly, which he himself gives. And what is this else but to make of God a tyrant and a tormentor, which requires of us that we are not able to perform. And it is in a manner as much as if they should say that the fault is not in us if we be damned, but in God, which with this circumstance requires his law to be accomplished of us.
These things I do the more diligently repeat, that you may see how far they have wandered from the true sense of the scripture, which have said that we by our own natural strength may love God above all things, or at least, by the work wrought we may deserve everlasting life. And because God is not content that we fulfill the law according to the substance of the deed, but will have us also to fulfill the same according to the meaning of the commander: therefore the scripture further compels us to have a quality above nature poured into us from above, and that is charity which they call formal righteousness adorning and beautifying faith, being also the cause that faith justifies us. So faith is the body, and the shell: charity the life, the kernel, the form and furniture. These are the dreams of the Schoolmen.
But we in the stead of this charity do place faith, and we say that faith apprehends Jesus Christ, who is the form which adorns and furnishes faith, as the color adorns and beautifies the wall. Christian faith then is not an idle quality or empty husk in the heart, which may be in deadly sin (as they say) until charity come and quicken it: but if it be true faith, it is a sure trust and confidence of the heart, and a firm consent whereby Christ is apprehended: So that Christ is the object of faith, indeed rather even in faith Christ himself is present. Faith therefore is a certain obscure knowledge, or rather darkness which sees nothing, and yet Christ apprehended by faith sits in this darkness: like as God in Sinai and in the temple sat in the midst of darkness. Therefore our formal righteousness is not charity furnishing and beautifying faith, but it is faith itself which is as it were a certain cloud in our hearts: that is to say, a steadfast trust and confidence in the thing which we see not, which is Christ: who although he be not seen at all, yet is he present.
Faith therefore justifies because it apprehends and possesses this treasure, even Christ present. But this presence cannot be comprehended by us, because it is in darkness, as I have said. Therefore, where assured trust and confidence of the heart is, there Christ is present, indeed even in the cloud and obscurity of faith. And this is that formal righteousness, whereby a man is justified, and not by charity, as the popish Schoolmen do affirm.
To conclude, like as the Schoolmen say that charity furnishes and adorns faith: so do we say that it is Christ that furnishes and adorns faith, or rather that he is the very form and perfection of faith. Therefore Christ apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, is true Christian righteousness, for the which God counts us righteous and gives us eternal life. Here is undoubtedly no work of the law, no such charity or love as the Sophists dream of: but a far other manner of righteousness, and a certain new world beyond and above the law: For Christ or faith is not the law nor work of the law. But concerning this matter, which the Schoolmen neither well understood nor taught, we intend to speak more largely hereafter. Now it shall be enough that we have showed that Paul speaks not here only of the ceremonial law, but of the whole law.
When a man does a good work, God accepts it, and in response pours love into him. This infused love — which they call charity — is, they say, a quality that takes root in the heart. They call this 'formal righteousness' (a term you should know). They cannot bear the thought that this quality, which adorns the soul as whiteness covers a wall, should not be counted as righteousness. They can rise no higher than this idea of human reason: that a person is righteous through his own formal righteousness, which is the grace that makes him acceptable to God — that is, love or charity. They attach formal righteousness to this love dwelling in the soul — love being itself a work of the law, since the law says: 'You shall love the Lord your God.' They say this righteousness is worthy of eternal life, and that whoever has it is formally righteous and also effectively righteous, because he now does good works to which eternal life is owed. This is the view of the Scholastic theologians — even the best of them.
Others went further in the wrong direction — Scotus and Occam among them — claiming that infused charity from God is not even necessary to obtain God's grace. A man can, they said, produce this love entirely by his own natural power. Scotus reasoned like this: if a man can love a creature — if a young man can love a girl, or a greedy man can love money, which are lesser goods — then he can certainly love God, who is the greater good. If he can produce love for a creature through natural strength, he can all the more produce love for the Creator. This argument stumped all the Scholastics — none of them could answer it. But they tried.
Scripture compels us to admit, they said, that God — beyond the natural love embedded in us, with which alone He is not satisfied — also requires the love that He Himself gives. In saying this, they end up accusing God of being a tyrant and a harsh taskmaster who is not content with our keeping the law as best we can, but demands, beyond what we can fulfill by our own power, that we fulfill it with an additional quality — like fine clothing added on top. It is like a mistress who is not satisfied that her cook has prepared an excellent meal, but scolds her for not having done so while wearing jewels and a golden crown. What kind of mistress demands something her cook was never required to do and could never have? In the same way, what kind of God would require us to fulfill His law — which we supposedly keep by our natural strength — while also demanding something we cannot possibly provide?
To avoid an obvious contradiction in their argument, they make a distinction. They say the law can be fulfilled in two ways: first, according to the substance of the act; second, according to the intention of the lawgiver. According to the substance of the act, they say, we can fulfill everything the law commands. But according to the intention of the lawgiver, God is not satisfied merely with your having done what the law requires. He demands more: that you fulfill the law in charity — not the natural love you possess by nature, but a supernatural, heavenly love that He Himself supplies. But what is this but making God into a tyrant and a torturer who demands what we cannot perform? It amounts to saying that if we are condemned, the fault lies not with us but with God, who requires His law to be fulfilled under conditions we cannot meet.
I rehearse these things in detail so you can see how far those who taught this have strayed from the true meaning of Scripture. They said that by our own natural strength we can love God above all things, or at least that we can earn eternal life by the work we perform. And because God is not content with fulfilling the law according to the substance of the act alone — but also demands fulfillment according to His intention — they conclude that Scripture requires us to have a supernatural quality poured into us from above. This is the charity they call formal righteousness — the quality that adorns and beautifies faith, and is the cause by which faith justifies us. So in their view, faith is the body and the shell; charity is the life, the core, and the form. These are the dreams of the Scholastics.
We, in place of their charity, put faith — and we say that faith lays hold of Jesus Christ, who is the form that adorns and completes faith, just as color adorns and beautifies a wall. Christian faith, then, is not an idle quality or empty shell in the heart that can coexist with mortal sin (as they claim) until charity comes along to enliven it. If it is true faith, it is a firm trust and confidence of the heart — a sure conviction by which Christ is grasped. Christ is the object of faith; and in fact, within faith Christ Himself is present. Faith therefore is a kind of hidden knowledge — or rather, a darkness that sees nothing — and yet Christ, grasped by faith, sits in this darkness, just as God in Sinai and in the temple dwelt in the midst of darkness. Our formal righteousness, therefore, is not charity adorning and completing faith. It is faith itself — which is like a cloud in our hearts — a steadfast trust and confidence in what we cannot see, which is Christ, who though invisible is truly present.
Faith justifies because it lays hold of and possesses this treasure — Christ Himself, present within it. But this presence cannot be comprehended by us, because it dwells in darkness, as I have said. Where there is genuine trust and confidence of heart, Christ is present — even in the cloud and obscurity of faith. And this is the formal righteousness by which a person is justified — not by charity, as the papist Scholastics claim.
In summary: just as the Scholastics say that charity adorns and completes faith, we say that it is Christ who adorns and completes faith — or rather, He is the very form and fulfillment of faith. Therefore Christ, grasped by faith and dwelling in the heart, is true Christian righteousness, for which God counts us righteous and grants us eternal life. Here there is no work of the law, no love or charity as the Scholastics dream of — but an entirely different kind of righteousness, a new world altogether, beyond and above the law. For Christ and faith are neither the law nor works of the law. We intend to speak of this more fully later. For now it is enough to have shown that Paul is speaking here not of the ceremonial law alone, but of the whole law.
