Chapter 15 [XIV.]—Not Everything [of Doctrinal Truth] is Written in Scripture in So Many Words.

That, too, which is said to him, “that it is nowhere written in so many words, A man can be without sin,” he easily refutes thus: “That the question here is not in what precise words each doctrinal statement is made.” It is perhaps not without reason that, while in several passages of Scripture we may find it said that men are without excuse, it is nowhere found that any man is described as being without sin, except Him only, of whom it is plainly said, that “He knew no sin.”33    2 Cor. v. 21. Similarly, we read in the passage where the subject is concerning priests: “He was in all points tempted like as we are, only without sin,”34    Heb. iv. 15.—meaning, of course, in that flesh which bore the likeness of sinful flesh, although it was not sinful flesh; a likeness, indeed, which it would not have borne if it had not been in every other respect the same as sinful flesh. How, however, we are to understand this: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; neither can he sin, for his seed remaineth in him;”35    1 John iii. 9. while the Apostle John himself, as if he had not been born of God, or else were addressing men who had not been born of God, lays down this position: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,”36    1 John i. 8.—I have already explained, with such care as I was able, in those books which I wrote to Marcellinus on this very subject.37    See the De Peccat. Meritis et Remissione, ii. 8–10. It seems, moreover, to me to be an interpretation worthy of acceptance to regard the clause of the above quoted passage: “Neither can he sin,” as if it meant: He ought not to commit sin. For who could be so foolish as to say that sin ought to be committed, when, in fact, sin is sin, for no other reason than that it ought not to be committed?

CAPUT XIV.

15. Non omnia scripta sunt. Et illud quod ei a quibusdam dicitur, «nusquam esse scriptum his omnino verbis, posse esse hominem sine peccato,» facile refellit, «quia non est ibi quaestio, quibus verbis dicatur quaecumque sententia.» Non tamen fortasse sine causa, cum aliquoties in Scripturis inveniatur homines dictos esse sine querela, non invenitur qui sit dictus sine peccato, nisi unus solus de quo aperte dictum est, Eum qui non noverat peccatum (II Cor. V, 21). Et eo loco ubi de sacerdotibus agebatur, Etenim expertus est omnia, secundum similitudinem absque peccato (Hebr. IV, 15): in illa scilicet carne, quae habebat similitudinem carnis peccati, quamvis non esset caro peccati; quam tamen similitudinem non haberet, nisi caetera omnis esset caro 0254 peccati. Jam illud quomodo accipiendum sit, Omnis qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat, et non potest peccare, quia semen ejus in ipso manet (I Joan. III, 9); cum ipse apostolus Joannes, quasi non sit natus ex Deo, aut eis loqueretur qui nondum nati essent ex Deo, aperte posuerit, Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est (Id. I, 8); in libris quos de hac re ad Marcellinum scripsi, sicut potui, explicare curavi (De Peccatorum Meritis, lib. 2, n. 8-10). Et illud quod dictum est, non potest peccare, pro eo dictum esse, ac si diceretur, Non debet peccare; non improbanda mihi videtur hujus assertio. Quis enim insanus dicat debere peccari; cum ideo sit peccatum, quia non debet fieri?