II. To the Principal Arguments

27. To the Arguments.

To the passage from Romans 2 [n.2] it can be said that, if the children of Israel alone were bound to the law of Moses, the rest, the Gentiles, could have lived justly by keeping the law of nature, and then they were ‘a law unto themselves’, that is, by the law of nature ‘written within on their hearts’ [Romans 2.15] they directed themselves in living rightly, just as the Jews did by the written law; but the Gentiles did not live well without all grace, because grace could - ex hypothesi - have been in them without observance of the Mosaic law.

28. As to the next [n.3] the statement of Augustinea can be conceded according to the opinion stated [sc. of Henry nn.25-26]. And to the minor [sc. ‘some sin cannot be avoided’] it can be said that he to whom grace is offered can guard against resisting grace, but he cannot guard against sin; for if he does not resist grace, he is justified; so only this sin [sc. resistance to grace] is what can be guarded against, but when a man is in a sin previously committed, sin cannot be guarded against [see the quotation from Henry in footnotes to n.25 and n.26 above].

a. a[Interpolation] namely that ‘no one sins in what he can in no way avoid’.

29. To the third [n.4] Anselm responds that, as far as concerns the part of free choice, justice can be kept once it is had, although when justice is not had it cannot be kept by free choice alone [cf. d.7 n.85].