The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
by Philipp Melanchthon · English · Gutenberg #6744 · 658,717 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
Author: Philipp Melanchthon
Release date: October 1, 2004 [eBook #6744]
Most recently updated: December 29, 2020
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6744
Credits: Produced for Project Gutenberg by Michael Pullen and David Klinge
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE APOLOGY OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION ***
Produced for Project Gutenberg by Michael Pullen and David Klinge.
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession
by Philip Melanchthon
Translated by F. Bente and W. H. T. Dau
_________________________________________________________________
This text was converted to ASCII format for Project Wittenberg by
Allen Mulvey. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at
Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126
________________________________________________________________
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)
Table of Contents
Philip Melanchthon's Introduction to the Apology
Part One: On Articles I-II of the Augustana
Part Two: On Articles III-IV of the Augustana
Part Three: What is Justifying Faith?
Part Four: That Faith in Christ Justifies
Part Five: That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ
Part Six: On Article III: Love and the Fulfilling of the Law
Part Seven: Reply to the Arguments of the Adversaries
Part Eight: Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...
Part Nine: Second Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...
Part Ten: Third Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...
Part Eleven: Articles Seven and Eight of the Augustana
Part Twelve: Article Nine of the Augustana
Part Thirteen: Article Ten of the Augustana
Part Fourteen: Article Eleven of the Augustana
Part Fifteen: Article Twelve of the Augustana
Part Sixteen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 1)
Part Seventeen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 2)
Part Eighteen: Article Seven of the Augustana
Part Nineteen: Article Fourteen of the Augustana
Part Twenty: Article Fifteen of the Augustana
Part Twenty-One: Article Sixteen of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Two: Article Seventeen of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Three: Article Eighteen of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Four: Article Nineteen of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Five: Article Twenty of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Six: Article Twenty-One of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Seven: Article Twenty-Two of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Eight: Article Twenty-Three of the Augustana
Part Twenty-Nine: Article Twenty-Four of the Augustana
Part Thirty: A Definition of the term "Sacrifice"
Part Thirty-One: What the Fathers Thought About Sacrifice
Part Thirty-Two: Of the Use of the Sacrament and Sacrifice
Part Thirty-Three: Of the Term "Mass"
Part Thirty-Four:Of the Mass for the Dead
Part Thirty-Five: Of Monastic Vows
Part Thirty-Six: Of Ecclesiatical Power
Part Thirty-Seven: End
INTRODUCTION
THE APOLOGY OF THE CONFESSION.
Philip Melanchthon Presents His Greeting to the Reader. Wherefore we
believe that troubles and dangers for the glory of Christ and the
good of the Church should be endured, and we are confident that this
our fidelity to duty is approved of God, and we hope that the
judgment of posterity concerning us will be more just.
For it is undeniable that many topics of Christian doctrine whose
existence in the Church is of the greatest moment have been brought
to view by our theologians and explained; in reference to which we
are not disposed here to recount under what sort of opinions, and how
dangerous, they formerly lay covered in the writings of the monks,
canonists, and sophistical theologians. [This may have to be done
later.]
We have the public testimonials of many good men, who give God thanks
for this greatest blessing, namely, that concerning many necessary
topics it has taught better things than are read everywhere in the
books of our adversaries.
We shall commend our cause, therefore, to Christ, who some time will
judge these controversies, and we beseech Him to look upon the
afflicted and scattered churches, and to bring them back to godly and
perpetual concord. [Therefore, if the known and clear truth is
trodden under foot, we will resign this cause to God and Christ in
heaven, who is the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows and of
all the forsaken, who (as we certainly know) will judge and pass
sentence upon this cause aright. Lord Jesus Christ, it is Thy holy
Gospel, it is Thy cause; look Thou upon the many troubled hearts and
consciences, and maintain and strengthen in Thy truth Thy churches
and little flocks, who suffer anxiety and distress from the devil.
Confound all hypocrisy and lies, and grant peace and unity, so that
Thy glory may advance, and Thy kingdom, strong against all the gates
of hell, may continually grow and increase.]
Part 1
Article I: _Of God._
The First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in which
we declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence,
undivided, etc., and yet, that there are three distinct persons, of
the same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
This article we have always taught and defended, and we believe that
it has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that cannot be
overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those thinking otherwise
are outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolaters, and insult
God.
Article II (I): _Of Original Sin._
The Second Article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but in
such a way that they, nevertheless, censure the definition of
original sin, which we incidentally gave. Here, immediately at the
very threshold, His Imperial Majesty will discover that the writers
of the _Confutation_ were deficient not only in judgment, but also in
candor. For whereas we, with a simple mind, desired, in passing, to
recount those things which original sin embraces, these men, by
framing an invidious interpretation, artfully distort a proposition
that has in it nothing which of itself is wrong. Thus they say: "To
be without the fear of God, to be without faith, is actual guilt";
and therefore they deny that it is original guilt.
It is quite evident that such subtilties have originated in the
schools, not in the council of the Emperor. But although this
sophistry can be very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good men
may understand that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd,
we ask first of all that the German Confession be examined. This
will free us from the suspicion of novelty. For there it is written:
_Weiter wird gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so
natuerlich geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen,
das ist, dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste und
Neigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott
von Natur haben koennen._ [It is further taught that since the Fall
of Adam all men who are naturally born are conceived and born in sin,
i.e., that they all, from their mother's womb, are full of evil
desire and inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God,
no true faith in God.] This passage testifies that we deny to those
propagated according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also the
power or gifts of producing fear and trust in God. For we say that
those thus born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and
trust in God. What is there here with which fault can be found? To
good men, we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselves
sufficiently. For in this sense the Latin description denies to
nature [even to innocent infants] the power, i.e., it denies the
gifts and energy by which to produce fear and trust in God, and, in
adults [over and above this innate evil disposition of the heart,
also] the acts, so that, when we mention concupiscence, we understand
not only the acts or fruits, but the constant inclination of the
nature [the evil inclination within, which does not cease as long as
we are not born anew through the Spirit and faith].
But hereafter we will show more fully that our description agrees
with the usual and ancient definition. For we must first show our
design in preferring to employ these words in this place. In their
schools the adversaries confess that "the material," as they call it,
"of original sin is concupiscence." Wherefore, in framing the
definition, this should not have been passed by, especially at this
time, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a manner
unbecoming teachers of religion [are speaking concerning this innate,
wicked desire more after the manner of heathen from philosophy than
according to God's Word, or Holy Scripture].
For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption
in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality
[not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or
burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt
of another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their
own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on
account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman
are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but
because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they
are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an
innate evil but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we
are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace].
To show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made
mention of "concupiscence," and, with the best intention, have termed
and explained it as "diseases," that "the nature of men is born
corrupt and full of faults" [not a part of man, but the entire person
with its entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease].
Nor, indeed, have we only made use of the term concupiscence, but we
have also said that "the fear of God and faith are wanting." This we
have added with the following design: The scholastic teachers also,
not sufficiently understanding the definition of original sin, which
they have received from the Fathers, extenuate the sin of origin.
They contend concerning the fomes [or evil inclination] that it is a
quality of [blemish in the] body, and, with their usual folly, ask
whether this quality be derived from the contagion of the apple or
from the breath of the serpent, and whether it be increased by
remedies. With such questions they have suppressed the main point.
Therefore, when they speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention
the more serious faults of human nature, to wit, ignorance of God,
contempt for God, being destitute of fear and confidence in God,
hatred of God's judgment, flight from God [as from a tyrant] when He
judges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust in
present things [money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which
are in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics
do not notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired
strength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God's
commandments according to the substance of the acts; nor do they see
that they are saying things that are contradictory to one another.
For what else is the being able in one's own strength to love God
above all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to have
original righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely
pure and holy]? But if human nature have such strength as to be able
of itself to love God above all things, as the scholastics
confidently affirm, what will original sin be? For what will there
be need of the grace of Christ if we can be justified by our own
righteousness [powers]? For what will there be need of the Holy
Ghost if human strength can by itself love God above all things, and
fulfil God's commandments? Who does not see what preposterous
thoughts our adversaries entertain? The lighter diseases in the
nature of man they acknowledge, the more severe they do not
acknowledge; and yet of these, Scripture everywhere admonishes us,
and the prophets constantly complain [as the 13th Psalm, and some
other psalms say Ps. 14, 1-3; 5, 9; 140, 3; 36, 1], namely, of carnal
security, of the contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and of
similar faults born with us. [For Scripture clearly says that all
these things are not blown at us, but born with us.] But after the
scholastics mingled with Christian doctrine philosophy concerning the
perfection of nature [light of reason], and ascribed to the free will
and the acts springing therefrom more than was sufficient, and taught
that men are justified before God by philosophic or civil
righteousness (which we also confess to be subject to reason, and in
a measure, within our power), they could not see the inner
uncleanness of the nature of men. For this cannot be judged except
from the Word of God, of which the scholastics, in their discussions,
do not frequently treat.
These were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we
made mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's natural
strength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicate
that original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of
God, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and
trust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults of
human nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the
Decalog.
Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understood
aright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: "Original sin
is the absence of original righteousness" [a lack of the first purity
and righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here the
scholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explain
what original righteousness is. Now, in the Scriptures,
righteousness comprises not only the second table of the Decalog
[regarding good works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also,
which teaches concerning the fear of God, concerning faith,
concerning the love of God. Therefore original righteousness was to
embrace not only an even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect
health and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the
body, as they contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain
knowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly the
rectitude and power to yield these affections [but the greatest
feature in that noble first creature was a bright light in the heart
to know God and His work, etc.]. And Scripture testifies to this,
when it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fashioned in the image and
likeness of God. What else is this than that there were embodied in
man such wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in which
God was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the
knowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like?
For thus Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the
latter of whom not only says many things to this effect, but
especially declares: That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God,
in which God is not at all times. And Paul shows in the Epistles to
the Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians, 3,10, that the image of God is
the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth. Nor does Longobard
fear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to God
which God implanted in man. We recount the opinions of the ancients,
which in no way interfere with Augustine's interpretation of the
image.
Therefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lack
of righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man's
lower powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and its
meanest and lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God,
confidence in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the power
to produce these affections [the light in the heart which creates a
love and desire for these matters]. For even the theologians
themselves teach in their schools that these are not produced without
certain gifts and the aid of grace. In order that the matter may be
understood, we term these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fear
and confidence in God. From these facts it appears that the ancient
definition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear
and confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the
gifts and power to produce these acts [that we have no good heart
toward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do
or achieve any perfectly good work].
Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of
Augustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence
[wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost,
concupiscence came in its place. For inasmuch as diseased nature
cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal
things. God's judgment it either contemns when at ease, or hates,
when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defect
and the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed is
concupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but
also, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nor
do those persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same
time concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost,
and love to God above all things.
We, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of
original sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able to
believe God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise:
the having concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God's
Word, i.e., seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal
wisdom and righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as god
things. Nor only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also
the more recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones
among them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly these
namely, the defects which I have recounted and concupiscence. For
Thomas says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of original
righteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the parts
of the soul; whence it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit
[something positive]. And Bonaventura: When the question is asked,
What is original sin? The correct answer is, that it is immoderate
[unchecked] concupiscence. The correct answer is also, that it is
want of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these replies
the other is included. The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he says
that original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the
flesh. For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring with
us ignorance of God unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God.
For when he mentions ignorance, he includes these. And these
opinions [even of the most recent teachers] also agree with Scripture.
For Paul sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divine
light], as 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God. In another place, Rom. 7, 5, he calls it
concupiscence working in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
We could cite more passages relating to both parts, but in regard to
a manifest fact there is no need of testimonies. And the intelligent
reader will readily be able to decide that to be without the fear of
God and without faith are more than actual guilt. For they are
abiding defects in our unrenewed nature.
In reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differing
either from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse from
corruptions and restore to light most important declarations of
Scripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by the
sophistical controversies of modern theologians. For it is manifest
from the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed what
the Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of original
righteousness]. But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. For
the magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one can
heartily long and have a desire for Christ for the inexpressibly
great treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers],
unless our diseases be recognized. [As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark
2, 17: They that are whole need not a physician.] The entire
righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy [and abomination] before God,
unless we acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love,
fear, and confidence in God [that we are miserable sinners who are in
disgrace with God]. For this reason the prophet Jeremiah, 31, 19,
says: After that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh. Likewise
Ps. 116, 11: I said in my haste, All men are liars, i.e., not
thinking aright concerning God.
Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote
that, "Original sin remains after Baptism." They add that this
article was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will
find on this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know in
what sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remains
after Baptism. He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes
the guilt of original sin, although the material, as they call it, of
the sin, i.e., concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference to
the material that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to
mortify the concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a
new sense and spirit] in man. In the same manner, Augustine also
speaks who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner
that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he
confesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains although it
is not imputed. And this judgment was so agreeable to those who
succeeded him that it was recited also in the decrees. Also against
Julian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has been
annulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh.
It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the
Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because
it produces desires against which believers contend. Our adversaries
know that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot
reject the matter, they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by
this artifice to crush an innocent man.
But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a
burden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to
death and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It has
been said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence.
If there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let them
quarrel with Augustine. Besides Paul says, Rom. 7, 7. 23: I had not
known lust (concupiscence), except the Law had said, Thou shalt not
covet. Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. These testimonies can be overthrown by no
sophistry. [All devils, all men cannot overthrow them.] For they
clearly call concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputed
to those who are in Christ although by nature it is a matter worthy
of death where it is not forgiven. Thus, beyond all controversy, the
Fathers believe. For Augustine, in a long discussion refutes the
opinion of those who thought that concupiscence in man is not a fault
but an adiaphoron, as color of the body or ill health is said to be
an adiaphoron [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor
evil].
But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil
inclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture
but simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradict
them. For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and
desire be there] who ever dared to say that these matters, even
though perfect agreement could not be attained, were adiaphora,
namely, to doubt concerning God's wrath,: concerning God's grace,
concerning God's Word, to be angry at the judgments of God, to be
provoked because God does not at once deliver one from afflictions,
to murmur because the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, to
be urged on by wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc.? And
yet godly men acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in the
Psalms and the prophets. [For all tried, Christian hearts know, alas!
that these evils are wrapped up in man's skin, namely to esteem
money, goods, and all other matters more highly than God, and to
spend our lives in security; again, that after the manner of our
carnal security we always imagine that God's wrath against sin is not
as serious and great as it verily is. Again, that we murmur against
the doing and will of God, when He does not succor us speedily in our
tribulations, and arranges our affairs to please us. Again, we
experience every day that it hurts us to see wicked people in good
fortune in this world, as David and all the saints have complained.
Over and above this, all men feel that their hearts are easily
inflamed, now with ambition, now with anger and wrath, now with
lewdness.] But in the schools they transferred hither from philosophy
notions entirely different, that, because of passions, we are neither
good nor evil, we are neither deserving of praise nor blame.
Likewise, that nothing is sin, unless it be voluntary [inner desires
and thoughts are not sins, if I do not altogether consent thereto].
These notions were expressed among philosophers with respect to civil
righteousness, and not with respect to God's judgment. [For there it
is true, as the jurists say, L. cogitationis, thoughts are exempt
from custom and punishment. But God searches the hearts; in God's
court and judgment it is different.] With no greater prudence they
add also other notions, such as, that [God's creature and] nature is
not [cannot in itself be] evil. In its proper place we do not
censure this; but it is not right to twist it into an extenuation of
original sin. And, nevertheless, these notions are read in the works
of scholastics, who inappropriately mingle philosophy or civil
doctrine concerning ethics with the Gospel. Nor were these matters
only disputed in the schools, but, as is usually the case, were
carried from the schools to the people. And these persuasions
[godless, erroneous, dangerous, harmful teachings] prevailed, and
nourished confidence in human strength, and suppressed the knowledge
of Christ's grace. Therefore, Luther wishing to declare the
magnitude of original sin and of human infirmity [what a grievous
mortal guilt original sin is in the sight of God], taught that these
remnants of original sin [after Baptism] are not, by their own nature,
adiaphora in man, but that, for their non-imputation, they need the
grace of Christ and, likewise for their mortification, the Holy Ghost.
Although the scholastics extenuate both sin and punishment when they
teach that man by his own strength, can fulfil the commandments of
God; in Genesis the punishment, imposed on account of original sin,
is described otherwise. For there human nature is subjected not only
to death and other bodily evils, but also to the kingdom of the devil.
For there, Gen. 3, 16, this fearful sentence is proclaimed: I will
put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her
seed. The defects and the concupiscence are punishments and sins.
Death and other bodily evils and the dominion of the devil, are
properly punishments. For human nature has been delivered into
slavery, and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates it with
wicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind. But
just as the devil cannot be conquered except by the aid of Christ, so
by our own strength we cannot free ourselves from this slavery. Even
the history of the world shows how great is the power of the devil's
kingdom. The world is full of blasphemies against God and of wicked
opinions, and the devil keeps entangled in these bands those who are
wise and righteous [many hypocrites who appear holy] in the sight of
the world. In other persons grosser vices manifest themselves. But
since Christ was given to us to remove both these sins and these
punishments, and to destroy the kingdom of the devil, sin and death,
it will not be possible to recognize the benefits of Christ unless we
understand our evils. For this reason our preachers have diligently
taught concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is
new but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy
Fathers.
We think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty concerning the
puerile and trivial sophistry with which the adversaries have
perverted our article. For we know that we believe aright and in
harmony with the Church catholic of Christ. But if the adversaries
will renew this controversy, there will be no want among us of those
who will reply and defend the truth. For in this case our
adversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what they say.
They often speak what is contradictory, and neither explain correctly
and logically that which is essential to [i.e., that which is or is
not properly of the essence of] original sin, nor what they call
defects. But we have been unwilling at this place to examine their
contests with any very great subtlety. We have thought it worth
while only to recite, in customary and well-known words, the belief
of the holy Fathers, which we also follow.
PART 2
Article III: _Of Christ._
The Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that
there are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed by
the Word into the unity of His person; and that the same Christ
suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that He was
raised again to reign, and to justify and sanctify believers, etc.,
according to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Article IV (II): _Of Justification._
In the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, below, in the Twentieth Article,
they condemn us, for teaching that men obtain remission of sins, not
because of their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, through
faith in Christ. [They reject quite stubbornly both these statements.
] For they condemn us both for denying that men obtain remission of
sins because of their own merits, and for affirming that, through
faith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ are
justified. But since in this controversy the chief topic of
Christian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illumines
and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for
the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and
alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge
of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings
necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we ask
His Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to matters
of such importance. For since the adversaries understand neither
what the remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor what
righteousness is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure the
glory and benefits of Christ and rob devout consciences of the
consolations offered in Christ. But that we may strengthen the
position of our Confession, and also remove the charges which the
adversaries advance against us, certain things are to be premised in
the beginning, in order that the sources of both kinds of doctrine, i.
e., both that of our adversaries and our own, may be known.
All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics,
the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law,
and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in
the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for
His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or
when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He
has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life
eternal. Moreover, in this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten
Commandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the
ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human
reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the
same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees
with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they
seek the remission of sins and justification. Now, the Decalog
requires not only outward civil works, which reason can in some way
produce, but it also requires other things placed far above reason,
namely, truly to fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God,
truly to be convinced that God hears us, and to expect the aid of God
in death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience to
God, in death and all afflictions, so that we may not flee from these,
or refuse them when God imposes them.
Here the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a
righteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides
that without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things.
For, as long as the human mind is at ease, and does not feel the
wrath or judgment of God, it can imagine that it wishes to love God,
that it wishes to do good for God's sake. [But it is sheer hypocrisy.
] In this manner they teach that men merit the remission of sins by
doing what is in them, i.e., if reason, grieving over sin, elicit an
act of love to God, or for God's sake be active in that which is good.
And because this opinion naturally flatters men, it has brought
forth and multiplied in the Church many services, monastic vows,
abuses of the mass; and, with this opinion the one has, in the course
of time, devised this act of worship and observances, the other that.
And in order that they might nourish and increase confidence in such
works, they have affirmed that God necessarily gives grace to one
thus working, by the necessity not of constraint, but of immutability
[not that He is constrained, but that this is the order which God
will not transgress or alter].
In this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which it
would be tedious to enumerate. Let the discreet reader think only of
this: If this be Christian righteousness, what difference is there
between philosophy and the doctrine of Christ? If we merit the
remission of sins by these elicit acts [that spring from our mind],
of what benefit is Christ? If we can be justified by reason and the
works of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration
[as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]? And from these opinions the
matter has now come to such a pass that many ridicule us because we
teach that an other than the philosophic righteousness must be sought
after. [Alas! it has come to this, that even great theologians at
Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other godliness or
righteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teaches
otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach. And although
we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridicule
it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We
have heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead
of a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard
a great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and
preached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish
way to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things
are true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the
adversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a
fine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so
learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. We
see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with
the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come
for the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we might
merit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this
gratuitously, because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receive
the doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit
the remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference
between philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian
righteousness.
Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a
knowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him that
it is His merit that a habit is given us, or, as they say, _prima
gratia_, "first grace," which they understand as a habit, inclining
us the more readily to love God; yet what they ascribe to this habit
is of little importance [is a feeble, paltry, small, poor operation,
that would be ascribed to Christ], because they imagine that the acts
of the will are of the same kind before and after this habit. They
imagine that the will can love God; but nevertheless this habit
stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully. And they bid us
first merit this habit by preceding merits; then they bid us merit by
the works of the Law an increase of this habit and life eternal.
Thus they bury Christ, so that men may not avail themselves of Him as
a Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receive
remission of sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their own
fulfilment of the Law they merit the remission of sins, and that by
their own fulfilment of the Law they are accounted righteous before
God; while, nevertheless, the Law is never satisfied, since reason
does nothing except certain civil works, and, in the mean time
neither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly believes that God cares
for it. And although they speak of this habit, yet, without the
righteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in man, nor
can it be understood what the love of God is.
Their feigning a distinction between _meritum congrui_ and _meritum
condigni_ [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice in
order not to appear openly to Pelagianize, For, if God necessarily
gives grace for the _meritum congrui_ [due merit], it is no longer
_meritum congrui_, but _meritum condigni_ [a true duty and complete
merit]. But they do not know what they are saying. After this habit
of love [is there], they imagine that man can acquire _merit de
condigno_. And yet they bid us doubt whether there be a habit
present. How, therefore, do they know whether they acquire merit _de
congruo_ or _de condigno_ [in full, or half]? But this whole matter
was fabricated by idle men [But, good God! these are mere inane ideas
and dreams of idle, wretched, inexperienced men who do not much
reduce the Bible to practise], who did not know how the remission of
sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of
conscience, trust in works is driven out of us. Secure hypocrites
always judge that they acquire _merit de condigno_, whether the habit
be present or be not present, because men naturally trust in their
own righteousness, but terrified consciences waver and hesitate, and
then seek and accumulate other works in order to find rest. Such
consciences never think that they acquire merit _de condigno_, and
they rush into despair unless they hear, in addition to the doctrine
of the Law, the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission of sins
and the righteousness of faith. [Thus some stories are told that
when the Barefooted monks had in vain praised their order and good
works to some good consciences in the hour of death, they at last had
to be silent concerning their order and St. Franciscus, and to say:
"Dear man, Christ has died for you." This revived and refreshed in
trouble, and alone gave peace and comfort.]
Thus the adversaries teach nothing but the righteousness of reason,
or certainly of the Law, upon which they look just as the Jews upon
the veiled face of Moses, and, in secure hypocrites who think that
they satisfy the Law, they excite presumption and empty confidence in
works [they place men on a sand foundation, their own works] and
contempt of the grace of Christ. On the contrary, they drive timid
consciences to despair, which, laboring with doubt, never can
experience what faith is, and how efficacious it is; thus, at last
they utterly despair.
Now, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely,
that God requires it, and that, because of God's commandment, the
honorable works which the Decalog commands must necessarily be
performed, according to the passage Gal. 3, 24: The Law was our
schoolmaster; likewise 1 Tim. 1, 9: The Law is made for the ungodly.
For God wishes those who are carnal [gross sinners] to be restrained
by civil discipline, and to maintain this, He has given laws, letters,
doctrine, magistrates, penalties. And this righteousness reason, by
its own strength, can, to a certain extent, work, although it is
often overcome by natural weakness, and by the devil impelling it to
manifest crimes. Now, although we cheerfully assign this
righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt
nature has no greater good [in this life and in a worldly nature,
nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue], and Aristotle
says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more
beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily
rewards), yet it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ.
For it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction,
and not true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.
False also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God
because of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].
False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love
God above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear
God to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to
obey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet what
belongs to others, etc.; although reason can work civil works.
False also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who,
without grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments
of God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in
their hearts]. We have testimonies for this our belief, not only
from the Scriptures, but also from the Fathers. For in opposition to
the Pelagians, Augustine contends at great length that grace is not
given because of our merits. And in _De Natura et Gratia_ he says:
If natural ability, through the free will, suffice both for learning
to know how one ought to live and for living aright, then Christ has
died in vain, then the offense of the Cross is made void. Why may I
not also here cry out? Yea I will cry out, and, with Christian grief,
will chide them: Christ has become of no effect unto you whosoever
of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal. 5, 4;
cf. 2, 21. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and
going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of
the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10 3. 4.
And John 8, 36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed. Therefore by reason we cannot be freed from sins and
merit the remission of sins. And in John 3, 5 it is written: Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. But if it is necessary to be born again of the Holy
Ghost the righteousness of reason does not justify us before God, and
does not fulfil the Law, Rom. 3, 23: All have come short of the glory
of God, i.e., are destitute of the wisdom and righteousness of God,
which acknowledges and glorifies God. Likewise Rom. 8, 7. 8: The
carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law
of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh
cannot please God. These testimonies are so manifest that, to use
the words of Augustine which he employed in this case, they do not
need an acute understanding, but only an attentive hearer. If the
carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh certainly does not love
God; if it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it cannot love God.
If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh sins even when we
do external civil works. If it cannot be subject to the Law of God,
it certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, it
possesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise. The
adversaries consider only the precepts of the Second Table which
contain civil righteousness that reason understands. Content with
this, they think that they satisfy the Law of God. In the mean time
they do not see the First Table which commands that we love God, that
we declare as certain that God is angry with sin, that we truly fear
God, that we declare as certain that God hears prayer. But the human
heart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God's
judgment, or in punishment flees from, and hates, God when He judges.
Therefore it does not obey the First Table. Since, therefore,
contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God and concerning
the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even
when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do
them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt
of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or
that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works
seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.
Lastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who
are under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love,
which springs from their mind, since it is impossible to love God,
unless the remission of sins be apprehended first by faith. For the
heart, truly feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He be
shown to have been reconciled. As long as He terrifies us, and seems
to cast us into eternal death, human nature is not able to take
courage, so as to love a wrathful, judging, and punishing God [poor,
weak nature must lose heart and courage, and must tremble before such
great wrath, which so fearfully terrifies and punishes, and can never
feel a spark of love before God Himself comforts]. It is easy for
idle men to feign such dreams concerning love as, that a person
guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they do
not feel what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in agony of
conscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences the
emptiness of these philosophical speculations. Paul says, Rom. 4,15:
The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the
remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies
consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience
terrified by the Law flees from the judgment of God. Therefore they
err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the
remission of sins. It is sufficient for us to have said these things
concerning the righteousness of reason or of the Law, which the
adversaries teach. For after a while, when we will declare our
belief concerning the righteousness of faith, the subject itself will
compel us to adduce more testimonies, which also will be of service
in overthrowing the errors of the adversaries which we have thus far
reviewed.
Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law
of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death,
on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be
justified but the promise of the remission of sins and of
justification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given for
us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world,
and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. And
this promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not read
thus: Through Christ you have grace salvation, etc., if you merit it],
but freely offers the remission of sins and justification, as Paul
says, Rom. 11, 6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace. And
in another place, Rom. 3, 21: The righteousness of God without the
Law is manifested, i.e., the remission of sins is freely offered.
Nor does reconciliation depend upon our merits. Because, if the
remission of sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliation
were from the Law, it would be useless. For, as we do not fulfil the
Law, it would also follow that we would never obtain the promise of
reconciliation. Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 4, 14: For if they which are
of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none
effect. For if the promise would require the condition of our merits
and the Law, which we never fulfil, it would follow that the promise
would be useless.
But since justification is obtained through the free promise, it
follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, wherefore would
there be need to promise? [And why should Paul so highly extol and
praise grace?] For since the promise cannot be received except by
faith, the Gospel, which is properly the promise of the remission of
sins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the
righteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach. Nor
is this the righteousness of the Law. For the Law requires of us our
works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ's
sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death,
reconciliation, which is received, not by works, but by faith alone.
This faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only
confidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. This
special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for
Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake
God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and
justifies us. And because in repentance, i.e. in terrors, it
comforts and encourages hearts it regenerates us, and brings the Holy
Ghost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law, namely, to love
God, truly to fear God, truly to be confident that God hears prayer,
and to obey God in all afflictions; it mortifies concupiscence, etc.
Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins,
sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it
does not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside
like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true
knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and
regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. And of
this faith not a syllable exists in the doctrine of our adversaries.
Hence we find fault with the adversaries, equally because they teach
only the righteousness of the Law and because they do not teach the
righteousness of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of
faith in Christ.
Part 3
_What Is Justifying Faith?_
The adversaries feign that faith is only a knowledge of the history,
and therefore teach that it can coexist with mortal sin. Hence they
say nothing concerning faith, by which Paul so frequently says that
men are justified, because those who are accounted righteous before
God do not live in mortal sin. But that faith which justifies is not
merely a knowledge of history, [not merely this, that I know the
stories of Christ's birth, suffering, etc. (that even the devils know,
)] but it is to assent to the promise of God, in which for Christ's
sake, the remission of sins and justification are freely offered.
[It is the certainty or the certain trust in the heart, when, with my
whole heart, I regard the promises of God as certain and true,
through which there are offered me, without my merit, the forgiveness
of sins, grace, and all salvation, through Christ the Mediator.] And
that no one may suppose that it is mere knowledge we will add further:
it is to wish and to receive the offered promise of the remission of
sins and of justification. [Faith is that my whole heart takes to
itself this treasure. It is not my doing, not my presenting or
giving, not my work or preparation, but that a heart comforts itself,
and is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that God
makes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds upon
us every treasure of grace in Christ.]
And the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the
Law can be easily discerned. Faith is the _latreia_ [divine service],
which receives the benefits offered by God; the righteousness of the
Law is the _latreia_ [divine service] which offers to God our merits.
By faith God wishes to be worshiped in this way, that we receive
from Him those things which He promises and offers.
Now, that faith signifies, not only a knowledge of the history, but
such faith as assents to the promise, Paul plainly testifies when he
says, Rom. 4, 16: Therefore it is of faith, to the end the promise
might be sure. For he judges that the promise cannot be received
unless by faith. Wherefore he puts them together as things that
belong to one another, and connects promise and faith. [There Paul
fastens and binds together these two, thus: Wherever there is a
promise faith is required and conversely, wherever faith is required
there must be a promise.] Although it will be easy to decide what
faith is if we consider the Creed where this article certainly stands:
The forgiveness of sins. Therefore it is not enough to believe that
Christ was born, suffered, was raised again, unless we add also this
article, which is the purpose of the history: The forgiveness of sins.
To this article the rest must be referred, namely, that for
Christ's sake, and not for the sake of our merits, forgiveness of
sins is given us. For what need was there that Christ was given for
our sins if for our sins our merits can make satisfaction?
As often, therefore, as we speak of justifying faith, we must keep in
mind that these three objects concur: the promise, and that, too,
gratuitous, and the merits of Christ, as the price and propitiation.
The promise is received by faith; the "gratuitous" excludes our
merits, and signifies that the benefit is offered only through mercy;
the merits of Christ are the price, because there must be a certain
propitiation for our sins. Scripture frequently implores mercy, and
the holy Fathers often say that we are saved by mercy. As often,
therefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind that
faith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy. And,
again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be
understood, namely, the promised mercy. For faith justifies and
saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only
because it receives the promised mercy.
And throughout the prophets and the psalms this worship, this
_latreia_, is highly praised, although the Law does not teach the
gratuitous remission of sins. But the Fathers knew the promise
concerning Christ that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins.
Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for
our sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a
matter [could not pay so great a debt]. Accordingly, they received
gratuitous mercy and remission of sins by faith, just as the saints
in the New Testament. Here belong those frequent repetitions
concerning mercy and faith, in the psalms and the prophets, as this,
Ps. 130, 3 sq.: If Thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who
shall stand? Here David confesses his sins and does not recount his
merits. He adds; But there is forgiveness with Thee. Here he
comforts himself by his trust in God's mercy, and he cites the
promise: My soul doth wait and in His Word do I hope, i.e., because
Thou hast promised the remission of sins, I am sustained by this Thy
promise. Therefore the fathers also were justified, not by the Law
but by the promise and faith. And it is amazing that the adversaries
extenuate faith to such a degree, although they see that it is
everywhere praised as an eminent service, as in Ps. 50, 15: Call upon
Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee. Thus God wishes
Himself to be known, thus He wishes Himself to be worshiped, that
from Him we receive benefits, and receive them, too, because of His
mercy, and not because of our merits. This is the richest
consolation in all afflictions [physical or spiritual, in life or in
death as all godly persons know]. And such consolations the
adversaries abolish when they extenuate and disparage faith, and
teach only that by means of works and merits men treat with God [that
we treat with God, the great Majesty, by means of our miserable,
beggarly works and merits].
Part 4
_That Faith in Christ Justifies._
In the first place, lest any one may think that we speak concerning
an idle knowledge of the history, we must declare how faith is
obtained [how the heart begins to believe]. Afterward we will show
both that it justifies, and how this ought to be understood, and we
will explain the objections of the adversaries. Christ, in the last
chapter of Luke 24, 47, commands that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in His name. For the Gospel convicts all men
that they are under sin, that they all are subject to eternal wrath
and death, and offers for Christ's sake remission of sin and
justification, which is received by faith. The preaching of
repentance, which accuses us, terrifies consciences with true and
grave terrors. [For the preaching of repentance, or this declaration
of the Gospel: Amend your lives! Repent! When it truly penetrates
the heart, terrifies the conscience, and is no jest, but a great
terror, in which the conscience feels its misery and sin and the
wrath of God.] In these, hearts ought again to receive consolation.
This happens if they believe the promise of Christ, that for His sake
we have remission of sins. This faith, encouraging and consoling in
these fears, receives remission of sins, justifies and quickens. For
this consolation is a new and spiritual life [a new birth and a new
life]. These things are plain and clear, and can be understood by
the pious, and have testimonies of the Church [as is to be seen in
the conversion of Paul and Augustine]. The adversaries nowhere can
say how the Holy Ghost is given. They imagine that the Sacraments
confer the Holy Ghost _ex opere operato_, without a good emotion in
the recipient, as though, indeed, the gift of the Holy Ghost were an
idle matter.
But since we speak of such faith as is not an idle thought, but of
that which liberates from death and produces a new life in hearts
[which is such a new light, life, and force in the heart as to renew
our heart, mind, and spirit, makes new men of us and new creatures,]
and is the work of the Holy Ghost; this does not coexist with mortal
sin [for how can light and darkness coexist?], but as long as it is
present, produces good fruits as we will say after a while. For
concerning the conversion of the wicked, or concerning the mode of
regeneration, what can be said that is more simple and more clear?
Let them, from so great an array of writers, adduce a single
commentary upon the Sententiae that speaks of the mode of
regeneration. When they speak of the habit of love, they imagine
that men merit it through works and they do not teach that it is
received through the Word, precisely as also the Anabaptists teach at
this time. But God cannot be treated with, God cannot be apprehended,
except through the Word. Accordingly, justification occurs through
the Word, just as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise 10, 17:
Faith cometh by hearing. And proof can be derived even from this
that faith justifies, because, if justification occurs only through
the Word, and the Word is apprehended only by faith, it follows that
faith justifies. But there are other and more important reasons. We
have said these things thus far in order that we might show the mode
of regeneration, and that the nature of faith [what is, or is not,
faith], concerning which we speak, might be understood.
Now we will show that faith [and nothing else] justifies. Here, in
the first place readers must be admonished of this, that just as it
is necessary to maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is it
necessary to defend that faith justifies, [without works]. For how
will Christ be Mediator if in justification we do not use Him as
Mediator; if we do not hold that for His sake we are accounted
righteous? But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that
for His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us. Likewise,
just as we ought to maintain that, apart from the Law, the promise
of Christ is necessary, so also is it needful to maintain that faith
justifies. [For the Law does not preach the forgiveness of sin by
grace.] For the Law cannot be performed unless the Holy Ghost be
first received. It is, therefore, needful to maintain that the
promise of Christ is necessary. But this cannot be received except
by faith. Therefore, those who deny that faith justifies, teach
nothing but the Law, both Christ and the Gospel being set aside.
But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it
of the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of
justification or preparation for justification, so that not faith
itself is that through which we are accepted by God, but the works
which follow; and they dream, accordingly, that faith is highly
praised, because it is the beginning. For great is the importance of
the beginning, as they commonly say, _Archae aemioy pantos_, The
beginning is half of everything; just as if one would say that
grammar makes the teachers of all arts, because it prepares for other
arts, although in fact it is his own art that renders every one an
artist. We do not believe thus concerning faith, but we maintain
this, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's
sake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "to
be justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born
again, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. For
Scripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is used
in two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being
accounted righteous.] Accordingly we wish first to show this, that
faith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission
of sins.
The particle alone offends some, although even Paul says, Rom. 3, 28:
We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of
the Law. Again, Eph. 2, 8: It is the gift of God; not of works, lest
any man should boast. Again, Rom. 3, 24: Being justified freely. If
the exclusive alone displeases, let them remove from Paul also the
exclusives freely, not of works, it is the gift, etc. For these also
are [very strong] exclusives. It is, however, the opinion of merit
that we exclude. We do not exclude the Word or Sacraments, as the
adversaries falsely charge us. For we have said above that faith is
conceived from the Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in the
highest degree. Love also and works must follow faith. Wherefore,
they are not excluded so as not to follow, but confidence in the
merit of love or of works is excluded in justification. And this we
will clearly show.
Part 5
_That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ._
We think that even the adversaries acknowledge that, in justification,
the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin.
Wherefore we reason thus:-To attain the remission of sins is to be
justified, according to Ps. 32, 1: Blessed is he whose transgression
is forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because
of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love
follows faith. Therefore by faith alone we are justified,
understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of
an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.
It will thus become easy to declare the minor premise [that we obtain
forgiveness of sin by faith, not by love] if we know how the
remission of sins occurs. The adversaries with great indifference
dispute whether the remission of sins and the infusion of grace are
the same change [whether they are one change or two]. Being idle men,
they did not know what to answer [cannot speak at all on this
subject]. In the remission of sins, the terrors of sin and of
eternal death, in the heart, must be overcome, as Paul testifies, 1
Cor. 15, 56 sq.: The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin
is the Law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, sin terrifies consciences,
this occurs through the Law, which shows the wrath of God against sin;
but we gain the victory through Christ. How? By faith, when we
comfort ourselves by confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's
sake. Thus, therefore we prove the minor proposition. The wrath of
God cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because
Christ has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake,
the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is not
apprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alone
we obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with
confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. Likewise Paul,
Rom. 5, 2, says: By whom also we have access, and adds, by faith.
Thus, therefore, we are reconciled to the Father, and receive
remission of sins when we are comforted with confidence in the mercy
promised for Christ's sake. The adversaries regard Christ as
Mediator and Propitiator for this reason, namely, that He has merited
the habit of love; they do not urge us to use Him now as Mediator,
but, as though Christ were altogether buried, they imagine that we
have access through our own works, and, through these, merit this
habit and afterwards, by this love, come to God. Is not this to bury
Christ altogether, and to take away the entire doctrine of faith?
Paul, on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e.,
reconciliation, through Christ. And to show how this occurs, he adds
that we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake,
we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and our
own works over against God's wrath.
Secondly. It is certain that sins are forgiven for the sake of
Christ, as Propitiator, Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation. Moreover, Paul adds: through faith. Therefore this
Propitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy
promised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God.
And to the same effect it is written, Heb. 4, 14. 16: Seeing, then,
that we have a great High Priest, etc., let us therefore come with
confidence. For the Apostle bids us come to God, not with confidence
in our own merits, but with confidence in Christ as a High Priest;
therefore he requires faith.
Thirdly. Peter, in Acts 10, 43, says: To Him give all the prophets
witness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shall
receive remission of sins. How could this be said more clearly? We
receive remission of sins, he says, through His name i.e., for His
sake; therefore, not for the sake of our merits, not for the sake of
our contrition, attrition, love, worship, works. And he adds: When
we believe in Him. Therefore he requires faith. For we cannot
apprehend the name of Christ except by faith. Besides he cites the
agreement of all the prophets. This is truly to cite the authority
of the Church. [For when all the holy prophets bear witness, that is
certainly a glorious, great excellent, powerful decretal and
testimony.] But of this topic we will speak again after a while, when
treating of "Repentance."
Fourthly. Remission of sins is something promised for Christ's sake.
Therefore it cannot be received except by faith alone. For a
promise cannot be received except by faith alone. Rom. 4, 16:
Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end that
the promise might be sure; as though he were to say: "If the matter
were to depend upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain and
useless, because we never could determine when we would have
sufficient merit." And this, experienced consciences can easily
understand [and would not, for a thousand worlds, have our salvation
depend upon ourselves]. Accordingly, Paul says, Gal. 3, 22: But the
Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. He takes merit
away from us, because he says that all are guilty and concluded under
sin; then he adds that the promise, namely, of the remission of sins
and of justification, is given, and adds how the promise can be
received, namely, by faith. And this reasoning, derived from the
nature of a promise, is the chief reasoning [a veritable rock] in
Paul, and is often repeated. Nor can anything be devised or imagined
whereby this argument of Paul can be overthrown. Wherefore let not
good minds suffer themselves to be forced from the conviction that we
receive remission of sins for Christ's sake, only through faith. In
this they have sure and firm consolation against the terrors of sin,
and against eternal death and against all the gates of hell.
[Everything else is a foundation of sand that sinks in trials.]
But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith
alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted
righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity,
but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith
apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith
we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add
testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very
righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely,
not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it
receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake
He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He
knows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30.
In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul discusses this topic especially,
and declares that, when we believe that God, for Christ's sake is
reconciled to us, we are justified freely by faith. And this
proposition, which contains the statement of the entire discussion
[the principal matter of all Epistles, yea, of the entire Scriptures],
he maintains in the third chapter: We conclude that a man is
justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3, 28. Here
the adversaries interpret that this refers to Levitical ceremonies
[not to other virtuous works]. But Paul speaks not only of the
ceremonies, but of the whole Law. For he quotes afterward (7, 7)
from the _Decalog_: Thou shalt not covet. And if moral works [that
are not Jewish ceremonies] would merit the remission of sins and
justification, there would also be no need of Christ and the promise,
and all that Paul speaks of the promise would be overthrown. He
would also have been wrong in writing to the Ephesians, 2, 8: By
grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is
the gift of God, not of works. Paul likewise refers to Abraham and
David, Rom. 4, 1. 6. But they had the command of God concerning
circumcision. Therefore, if any works justified these works must
also have justified at the time that they had a command. But
Augustine teaches correctly that Paul speaks of the entire Law, as he
discusses at length in his book, Of the Spirit and Letter, where he
says finally: These matters, therefore, having been considered and
treated, according to the ability that the Lord has thought worthy to
give us, we infer that man is not justified by the precepts of a good
life, but by faith in Jesus Christ.
And lest we may think that the sentence that faith justifies, fell
from Paul inconsiderately, he fortifies and confirms this by a long
discussion in the fourth chapter to the Romans, and afterwards
repeats it in all his epistles. Thus he says, Rom. 4, 4. 5: To him
that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But
to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Here he clearly
says that faith itself is imputed for righteousness. Faith,
therefore, is that thing which God declares to be righteousness, and
he adds that it is imputed freely, and says that it could not be
imputed freely, if it were due on account of works. Wherefore he
excludes also the merit of moral works [not only Jewish ceremonies,
but all other good works]. For if justification before God were due
to these, faith would not be imputed for righteousness without works.
And afterwards, Rom. 4, 9: For we say that faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness. Chapter 5, 1 says: Being justified by
faith, we have peace with God, i.e., we have consciences that are
tranquil and joyful before God. Rom. 10, 10: With the heart man
believeth unto righteousness. Here he declares that faith is the
righteousness of the heart. Gal. 2, 15: We have believed in Christ
Jesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by
the works of the Law. Eph. 2, 8. For by grace are ye saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of
works, lest any man should boast.
John 1, 12: To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 3, 14.
15: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must
the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish. Likewise, v. 17: For God sent not His Son into the world
to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
He that believeth on Him is not condemned.
Acts 13, 38. 39: Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,
that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins;
and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which
ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. How could the office
of Christ and justification be declared more clearly? The Law, he
says, did not justify. Therefore Christ was given, that we may
believe that for His sake we are justified. He plainly denies
justification to the Law. Hence, for Christ's sake we are accounted
righteous when we believe that God, for His sake, has been reconciled
to us. Acts 4, 11. 12: This is the stone which was set at naught of
you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is
there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. But the name of
Christ is apprehended only by faith. [I cannot believe in the name
of Christ in any other way than when I hear His merit preached, and
lay hold of that.] Therefore, by confidence in the name of Christ,
and not by confidence in our works, we are saved. For "the name"
here signifies the cause which is mentioned because of which
salvation is attained. And to call upon the name of Christ is to
trust in the name of Christ, as the cause or price because of which
we are saved. Acts 15, 9: Purifying their hearts by faith.
Wherefore that faith of which the Apostles speak is not idle
knowledge, but a reality, receiving the Holy Ghost and justifying us
[not a mere knowledge of history, but a strong powerful work of the
Holy Ghost, which changes hearts].
Hab. 2, 4: The just shall live by his faith. Here he says, first
that men are just by faith by which they believe that God is
propitious and he adds that the same faith quickens, because this
faith produces in the heart peace and joy and eternal life [which
begins in the present life].
Is. 53, 11: By His knowledge shall He justify many. But what is the
knowledge of Christ unless to know the benefits of Christ, the
promises which by the Gospel He has scattered broadcast in the world?
And to know these benefits is properly and truly to believe in
Christ, to believe that that which God has promised for Christ's sake
He will certainly fulfil.
But Scripture is full of such testimonies, since, in some places, it
presents the Law, and in others the promises concerning Christ, and
the remission of sins, and the free acceptance of the sinner for
Christ's sake.
Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For
Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world
was subject to him by the Law for the reason that, according to the
command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the
Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived,
but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners,
seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He
forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of
His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us.
This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: "The Law entered that the offense
might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound."
Because after the whole world become subject, He took away the sin of
the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying, John 1, 29: "Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this
account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his
deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was
justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that
which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose
transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," Ps. 32, 1. These
are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies
justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free
through the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who are
adorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. For
some are called angelic; others, subtile; and others irrefragable
[that is, doctors who cannot err]. When all these have been read and
reread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is
this one passage of Ambrose.
To the same effect, Augustine writes many things against the
Pelagians. In f the Spirit and Letter he says: The righteousness of
the Law, namely, that he who has fulfilled it shall live in it, is
set forth for this reason that when any one has recognized his
infirmity he may attain and work the same and live in it,
conciliating the Justifier not by his own strength nor by the letter
of the Law itself (which cannot be done), but by faith. Except in a
justified man, there is no right work wherein he who does it may live.
But justification is obtained by faith. Here he clearly says that
the Justifier is conciliated by faith, and that justification is
obtained by faith. And a little after: By the Law we fear God; by
faith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace is
hidden; and the soul laboring, etc., under this fear betakes itself
by faith to God's mercy, in order that He may give what lie commands.
Here he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith
they receive consolation. He also teaches us to apprehend, by faith,
mercy, before we attempt to fulfil the Law. We will shortly cite
certain other passages.
Truly, it is amazing that the adversaries are in no way moved by so
many passages of Scripture, which clearly ascribe justification to
faith, and, indeed, deny it to works. Do they think that the same is
repeated so often for no purpose? Do they think that these words
fell inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost? But they have also devised
sophistry whereby they elude them. They say that these passages of
Scripture, (which speak of faith,) ought to be received as referring
to a _fides formata_, i.e., they do not ascribe justification to
faith except on account of love. Yea, they do not, in any way,
ascribe justification to faith, but only to love, because they dream
that faith can coexist with mortal sin. Whither does this tend,
unless that they again abolish the promise and return to the Law? If
faith receive the remission of sins on account of love, the remission
of sins will always be uncertain, because we never love as much as we
ought, yea, we do not love unless our hearts are firmly convinced
that the remission of sins has been granted us. Thus the adversaries,
while they require in the remission of sins and justification
confidence in one's own love, altogether abolish the Gospel
concerning the free remission of sins; although at the same time,
they neither render this love nor understand it, unless they believe
that the remission of sins is freely received.
We also say that love ought to follow faith as Paul also says, Gal. 5,
6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. And yet we must not
think on that account that by confidence in this love or on account
of this love we receive the remission of sins and reconciliation just
as we do not receive the remission of sins because of other works
that follow. But the remission of sins is received by faith alone,
and, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannot
be received except by faith. But faith, properly so called, is that
which assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in
the heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of this
faith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission of
sins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham]
accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works
of the Law, although love necessarily follows. Nor, indeed, is this
faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but
it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and
terrified minds are encouraged and quickened. And because this faith
alone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable to
God, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called
_gratia gratum faciens_, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than an
effect following, namely, love.
Thus far, in order that the subject might be made quite clear, we
have shown with sufficient fulness, both from testimonies of
Scripture, and arguments derived from Scripture, that by faith alone
we obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faith
alone we are justified, i.e., of unrighteous men made righteous, or
regenerated. But how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, can
be easily judged, because in this alone the office of Christ is
recognized, by this alone we receive the benefits of Christ; this
alone brings sure and firm consolation to pious minds. And in the
Church [if there is to be a church, if there is to be a Christian
Creed], it is necessary that there should be the [preaching and]
doctrine [by which consciences are not made to rely on a dream or to
build on a foundation of sand, but] from which the pious may receive
the sure hope of salvation. For the adversaries give men bad advice
[therefore the adversaries are truly unfaithful bishops, unfaithful
preachers and doctors; they have hitherto given evil counsel to
consciences, and still do so by introducing such doctrine] when they
bid them doubt whether they obtain remission of sins. For how will
such persons sustain themselves in death who have heard nothing of
this faith, and think that they ought to doubt whether they obtain
the remission of sins? Besides it is necessary that in the Church of
Christ the Gospel be retained, i.e., the promise that for Christ's
sake sins are freely remitted. Those who teach nothing of this faith,
concerning which we speak, altogether abolish the Gospel. But the
scholastics mention not even a word concerning this faith. Our
adversaries follow them, and reject this faith. Nor do they see that,
by rejecting this faith, they abolish the entire promise concerning
the free remission of sins and the righteousness of Christ.
Part 6
Article III: _Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law._
Here the adversaries urge against us: If thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments, Matt. 19, 17; likewise: The doers of the Law
shall be justified, Rom. 2, 13, and many other like things concerning
the Law and works. Before we reply to this, we must first declare
what we believe concerning love and the fulfilling of the Law.
It is written in the prophet, Jer. 31, 33: I will put My Law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts. And in Rom. 3, 31 Paul
says: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea,
we establish the Law. And Christ says, Matt. 19, 17: If thou wilt
enter into life, keep the commandments. Likewise, 1 Cor. 13, 3: If I
have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. These and similar
sentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept
by us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been
justified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit].
Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives
commandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the
_Decalog_. Because, indeed, faith brings the Holy Ghost, and
produces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should produce
spiritual movements in hearts. And what these movements are, the
prophet, Jer. 31, 33, shows, when he says: I will put My Law into
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Therefore, when we
have been justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear and
love God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks and
praise Him and to obey Him in afflictions. We begin also to love our
neighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements
[there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart mind, and
spirit within].
These things cannot occur until we have been justified by faith, and,
regenerated, we receive the Holy Ghost: first, because the Law cannot
be kept without [the knowledge of] Christ; and likewise the Law
cannot be kept without the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost is
received by faith, according to the declaration of Paul, Gal. 3, 14:
That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Then,
too, how can the human heart love God while it knows that He is
terribly angry, and is oppressing us with temporal and perpetual
calamities? But the Law always accuses us, always shows that God is
angry. [Therefore, what the scholastics say of the love of God is a
dream.] God therefore is not loved until we apprehend mercy by faith.
Not until then does He become a lovable object.
Although, therefore, civil works, i.e., the outward works of the Law,
can be done, in a measure, without Christ and without the Holy Ghost
[from our inborn light], nevertheless it appears from what we have
said that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law, i.e.,
the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the
first table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost. But our
adversaries are fine theologians; they regard the second table and
political works; for the first table [in which is contained the
highest theology, on which all depends] they care nothing, as though
it were of no matter; or certainly they require only outward
observances. They in no way consider the Law that is eternal, and
placed far above the sense and intellect of all creatures [which
concerns the very Deity, and the honor of the eternal Majesty], Deut.
6, 5: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thine heart. [This
they treat as such a paltry small matter as if it did not belong to
theology.]
But Christ was given for this purpose, namely, that for His sake
there might be bestowed on us the remission of sins, and the Holy
Ghost to bring forth in us new and eternal life, and eternal
righteousness [to manifest Christ in our hearts, as it is written
John 16, 15: He shall take of the things of Mine, and show them unto
you. Likewise, He works also other gifts, love, thanksgiving,
charity, patience, etc.]. Wherefore the Law cannot be truly kept
unless the Holy Ghost be received through faith. Accordingly, Paul
says that the Law is established by faith, and not made void; because
the Law can only then be thus kept when the Holy Ghost is given. And
Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 15 sq., the veil that covered the face of
Moses cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the Holy
Ghost is received. For he speaks thus: But even unto this day, when
Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it
shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord
is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the
entire Law, the _Decalog_ and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites
think that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God and that
sacrifices and observances justify before God _ex opere operato_.
But then this veil is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this
error, when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the
heinousness of sin. Then, for the first time, we see that we are far
from fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, in
security and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully
certain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born
and die by chance. Then we experience that we do not believe that
God forgives and hears us. But when, on hearing the Gospel and the
remission of sins, we are consoled by faith, we receive the Holy
Ghost, so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and to
fear and believe God, etc. From these facts it is apparent that the
Law cannot be kept without Christ and the Holy Ghost.
We, therefore, profess that it is necessary that the Law be begun in
us, and that it be observed continually more and more. And at the
same time we comprehend both spiritual movements and external good
works [the good heart within and works without]. Therefore the
adversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians do not
teach good works, while they not only require these, but also show
how they can be done [that the heart must enter into these works,
lest they be mere lifeless, cold works of hypocrites]. The result
convicts hypocrites, who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil the
Law, that they cannot accomplish what they attempt. [For are they
free from hatred, envy, strife, anger, wrath, avarice, adultery, etc.?
Why, these vices were nowhere greater than in the cloisters and
sacred institutes.] For human nature is far too weak to be able by
its own powers to resist the devil, who holds as captives all who
have not been freed through faith. There is need of the power of
Christ against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that for
Christ's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for the
governance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither be
deceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary to
God's will. [Otherwise we should, every hour, fall into error and
abominable vices.] Just as Ps. 68, 18 teaches: Thou hast led
captivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for man. For Christ has
overcome the devil, and has given to us the promise and the Holy
Ghost, in order that, by divine aid, we ourselves also may overcome.
And 1 John 3, 8: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that
He might destroy the works of the devil. Again, we teach not only
how the Law can be observed, but also how God is pleased if anything
be done, namely, not because we render satisfaction to the Law, but
because we are in Christ, as we shall say after a little. It is,
therefore, manifest that we require good works. Yea, we add also
this, that it is impossible for love to God, even though it be small,
to be sundered from faith, because through Christ we come to the
Father, and, the remission of sins having been received, we now are
truly certain that we have a God, i.e., that God cares for us; we
call upon Him, we give Him thanks, we fear Him, we love Him as John
teaches in his first Epistle, 4, 19: We love Him he says, because He
first loved us, namely, because He gave His Son for us, and forgave
us our sins. Thus he indicates that faith precedes and love follows.
Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance i.e., it
is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of
God against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be
freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith
ought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore it cannot exist in
those who live according to the flesh, who are delighted by their own
lusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is,
therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So, too, vv. 12. 13:
We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye
live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Wherefore, the faith
which receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing
from sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither
does it coexist with mortal sin.
From these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love,
and teach that love justifies. Thus it is clearly apparent that they
teach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins through
faith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator,
that for Christ's sake we have a gracious God; but because of our
love. And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say,
neither can they say. They proclaim that they fulfil the Law,
although this glory belongs properly to Christ; and they set against
the judgment of God confidence in their own works; for they say that
they _merit de condigno_ (according to righteousness) grace and
eternal life. This confidence is absolutely impious and vain. For
in this life we cannot satisfy the Law, because carnal nature does
not cease to bring forth wicked dispositions [evil inclination and
desire], even though the Spirit in us resists them.
But some one may ask: Since we also confess that love is a work of
the Holy Ghost, and since it is righteousness, because it is the
fulfilling of the Law, why do we not teach that it justifies? To
this we must reply: In the first place, it is certain that we receive
remission of sins, neither through our love nor for the sake of our
love, but for Christ's sake, by faith alone. Faith alone, which
looks upon the promise, and knows that for this reason it must be
regarded as certain that God forgives, because Christ has not died in
vain, etc., overcomes the terrors of sin and death. If any one
doubts whether sins are remitted him, he dishonors Christ, since he
judges that his sin is greater or more efficacious than the death and
promise of Christ although Paul says, Rom. 5, 20: Where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound, i.e., that mercy is more comprehensive
[more powerful, richer, and stronger] than sin. If any one thinks
that he obtains the remission of sins because he loves, he dishonors
Christ, and will discover in God's judgment that this confidence in
his own righteousness is wicked and vain. Therefore it is necessary
that faith [alone] reconciles and justifies. And as we do not
receive remission of sins through other virtues of the Law, or on
account of these namely, on account of patience, chastity, obedience
towards magistrates, etc., and nevertheless these virtues ought to
follow, so, too, we do not receive remission of sins because of love
to God although it is necessary that this should follow. Besides,
the custom of speech is well known that by the same word we sometimes
comprehend by synecdoche the cause and effects. Thus in Luke 7, 47
Christ says: Her sins, which are many, are forgiven for she loved
much. For Christ interprets Himself [this very passage] when He adds:
Thy faith hath saved thee. Christ, therefore, did not mean that the
woman, by that work of love, had merited the remission of sins. For
that is the reason He says: Thy faith hath sated thee. But faith is
that which freely apprehends God's mercy on account of God's Word
[which relies upon God's mercy and Word, and not upon one's own work].
If any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he
can rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not
understand at all what faith is. [For the terrified conscience is
not satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is
comforted and encouraged alone by God's Word.] And the narrative
itself shows in this passage what that is which He calls love. The
woman came with the opinion concerning Christ that with Him the
remission of sins should be sought. This worship is the highest
worship of Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to Christ. To
seek from Him the remission of sins was truly to acknowledge the
Messiah. Now, thus to think of Christ, thus to worship Him, thus to
embrace Him, is truly to believe. Christ, moreover, employed the
word "love" not towards the woman, but against the Pharisee, because
He contrasted the entire worship of the Pharisee with the entire
worship of the woman. He reproved the Pharisee because he did not
acknowledge that He was the Messiah, although he rendered Him the
outward offices due to a guest and a great and holy man. He points
to the woman and praises her worship, ointment, tears, etc., all of
which were signs of faith and a confession, namely, that with Christ
she sought the remission of sins. It is indeed a great example which,
not without reason, moved Christ to reprove the Pharisee, who was a
wise and honorable man, but not a believer. He charges him with
impiety, and admonishes him by the example of the woman, showing
thereby that it is disgraceful to him, that, while an unlearned woman
believes God, he, a doctor of the Law, does not believe, does not
acknowledge the Messiah, and does not seek from Him remission of sins
and salvation. Thus, therefore, He praises the entire worship [faith
with its fruits, but towards the Pharisee He names only the fruits
which prove to men that there is faith in the heart] as it often
occurs in the Scriptures that by one word we embrace many things; as
below we shall speak at greater length in regard to similar passages,
such as Luke 11, 41: Give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold,
all things are clean unto you. He requires not only alms, but also
the righteousness of faith. Thus He here says: Her sins, which are
many, are forgiven, for she loved much i.e., because she has truly
worshiped Me with faith and the exercises and signs of faith. He
comprehends the entire worship. Meanwhile He teaches this, that the
remission of sins is properly received by faith, although love,
confession, and other good fruits ought to follow. Wherefore He does
not mean this, that these fruits are the price, or are the
propitiation, because of which the remission of sins, which
reconciles us to God, is given. We are disputing concerning a great
subject, concerning the honor of Christ, and whence good minds may
seek for sure and firm consolation whether confidence is to be placed
in Christ or in our works. Now, if it is to be placed in our works,
the honor of Mediator and Propitiator will be withdrawn from Christ.
And yet we shall find, in God's judgment, that this confidence is
vain, and that consciences rush thence into despair. But if the
remission of sins and reconciliation do not occur freely for Christ's
sake, but for the sake of our love, no one will have remission of
sins, unless when he has fulfilled the entire Law, because the Law
does not justify as long as it can accuse us. Therefore it is
manifest that, since justification is reconciliation for Christ's
sake we are justified by faith, because it is very certain that by
faith alone the remission of sins is received.
Now, therefore, let us reply to the objection which we have above
stated: [Why does love not justify anybody before God?] The
adversaries are right in thinking that love is the fulfilling of the
Law, and obedience to the Law is certainly righteousness. [Therefore
it would be true that love justifies us if we would keep the Law.
But who in truth can say or boast that he keeps the Law, and loves
God as the Law has commanded? We have shown above that God has made
the promise of grace, because we cannot observe the Law. Therefore
Paul says everywhere that we cannot be justified before God by the
Law.] But they make a mistake in this that they think that we are
justified by the Law. [The adversaries have to fail at this point,
and miss the main issue, for in this business they only behold the
Law. For all men's reason and wisdom cannot but hold that we must
become pious by the Law, and that a person externally observing the
Law is holy and pious. But the Gospel faces us about, directs us
away from the Law to the divine promises, and teaches that we are not
justified, etc.] Since, however, we are not justified by the Law
[because no person can keep it], but receive remission of sins and
reconciliation by faith for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of
love or the fulfilling of the Law, it follows necessarily that we are
justified by faith in Christ. [For before we fulfil one tittle of
the Law, there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to
God and first obtain the remission of sin. Good God, how dare people
call themselves Christians or say that they once at least looked into
or read the books of the Gospel when they still deny that we obtain
remission of sins by faith in Christ? Why, to a Christian it is
shocking merely to hear such a statement.]
Again, [in the second place,] this fulfilling of the Law or obedience
towards the Law, is indeed righteousness, when it is complete; but in
us it is small and impure. [For, although they have received the
first-fruits of the Spirit, and the new, yea the eternal life has
begun in them, there still remains a remnant of sin and evil lust,
and the Law still finds much of which it must accuse us.] Accordingly,
it is not pleasing for its own sake, and is not accepted for its own
sake. But although from those things which have been said above it
is evident that justification signifies not the beginning of the
renewal, but the reconciliation by which also we afterwards are
accepted, nevertheless it can now be seen much more clearly that the
inchoate fulfilling of the Law does not justify, because it is
accepted only on account of faith. [Trusting in our own fulfilment
of the Law is sheer idolatry and blaspheming Christ, and in the end
it collapses and causes our consciences to despair. Therefore, this
foundation shall stand forever, namely, that for Christ's sake we are
accepted with God, and justified by faith, not on account of our love
and works. This we shall make so plain and certain that anybody may
grasp it. As long as the heart is not at peace with God, it cannot
be righteous, for it flees from the wrath of God, despairs, and would
have God not to judge it. Therefore the heart cannot be righteous
and accepted with God while it is not at peace with God. Now, faith
alone makes the heart to be content, and obtains peace and life Rom.
5, 1, because it confidently and frankly relies on the promise of God
for Christ's sake. But our works do not make the heart content, for
we always find that they are not pure. Therefore it must follow that
we are accepted with God, and justified by faith alone, when in our
hearts we conclude that God desires to be gracious to us, not on
account of our works and fulfilment of the Law, but from pure grace,
for Christ's sake. What can our opponents bring forward against this
argument? What can they invent and devise against the plain truth?
For this is quite certain, and experience teaches forcibly enough,
that when we truly feel the judgment and wrath of God, or become
afflicted, our works and worship cannot set the heart at rest.
Scripture indicates this often enough as in Ps. 143, 2: Enter not
into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living
be justified. Here he clearly shows that all the saints, all the
pious children of God, who have the Holy Ghost, if God would not by
grace forgive them their sin, still have remnants of sin in the flesh.
For when David in another place, Ps. 7, 8, says: Judge me O Lord,
according to my righteousness, he refers to his cause, and not to his
righteousness, and asks God to protect his cause and word, for he
says: Judge, O Lord, my cause. Again, in Ps. 130, 3 he clearly
states that no person, not even the greatest saints, can bear God's
judgment, if He were to observe our iniquity, as he says: If Thou,
Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand! And thus
says Job, 9, 28: I was afraid of all my works (Engl. vers., sorrows).
Likewise chap. 9, 30: If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my
hands never so clean, yet shalt Thou plunge me in the ditch. And
Prov. 20, 9: Who can say, I have made my heart clean? And 1 John 1,
8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth
is not in us. And in the Lord's Prayer the saints ask for the
forgiveness of sins. Therefore even the saints have guilt and sins.
Again in Num. 14, 18: The innocent will not be innocent. And
Zechariah, 2, 13, says: Be silent O all flesh, before the Lord. And
Isaiah 40, 6 sqq.: All flesh is grass, i.e., flesh and righteousness
of the flesh cannot endure the judgment of God. And Jonah says, 2, 9:
They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. Therefore,
pure mercy preserves us, our own works, merits, endeavors, cannot
preserve us. These and similar declarations in the Scriptures
testify that our works are unclean, and that we need mercy.
Wherefore works do not render consciences pacified but only mercy
apprehended by faith does.] Nor must we trust that we are accounted
righteous before God by our own perfection and fulfilling of the Law,
but rather for Christ's sake.
First [in the third place], because Christ does not cease to be
Mediator after we have been renewed. They err who imagine that He
has merited only a first grace, and that afterwards we please God and
merit eternal life by our fulfilling of the Law. Christ remains
Mediator, and we ought always to be confident that for His sake we
have a reconciled God even although we are unworthy. As Paul clearly
teaches when he says [By whom also we have access to God, Rom. 5, 2.
For our best works, even after the grace of the Gospel has been
received, as I stated, are still weak and not at all pure. For sin
and Adam's fall are not such a trifling thing as reason holds or
imagines, it exceeds the reason and thought of all men to understand
what a horrible wrath of God has been handed on to us by that
disobedience. There occurred a shocking corruption of the entire
human nature, which no work of man, but only God Himself, can
restore], 1 Cor. 4, 4: I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby
justified, but he knows that by faith he is accounted righteous for
Christ's sake, according to the passage: Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, Ps. 32, 1; Rom. 4, 7. [Therefore we need
grace, and the gracious goodness of God, and the forgiveness of sin,
although we have done many good works.] But this remission is always
received by faith. Likewise, the imputation of the righteousness of
the Gospel is from the promise; therefore it is always received by
faith, and it always must be regarded certain that by faith we are
for Christ's sake, accounted righteous. If the regenerate ought
afterwards to think that they will be accepted on account of the
fulfilling of the Law, when would conscience be certain that it
pleased God, since we never satisfy the Law? Accordingly, we must
always recur to the promise; by this our infirmity must be sustained,
and we must regard it as certain that we are accounted righteous for
the sake of Christ, who is ever at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession for us, Rom. 8, 34. If any one think that he is
righteous and accepted on account of his own fulfilment of the Law,
and not on account of Christ's promise, he dishonors this High Priest.
Neither can it be understood how one could imagine that man is
righteous before God when Christ is excluded as Propitiator and
Mediator.
Again [in the fourth place], what need is there of a long discussion?
[If we were to think that, after we have come to the Gospel and are
born again, we were to merit by our works that God be gracious to us,
not by faith, conscience would never find rest, but would be driven
to despair. For the Law unceasingly accuses us, since we never can
satisfy the Law.] All Scripture, all the Church cries out that the
Law cannot be satisfied. Therefore this inchoate fulfilment of the
Law does not please on its own account, but on account of faith in
Christ. Otherwise the Law always accuses us. For who loves or fears
God sufficiently? Who with sufficient patience bears the afflictions
imposed by God? Who does not frequently doubt whether human affairs
are ruled by God's counsel or by chance? Who does not frequently
doubt whether he be heard by God? Who is not frequently enraged
because the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious, because the
pious are oppressed by the wicked? Who does satisfaction to his own
calling? Who loves his neighbor as himself? Who is not tempted by
lust? Accordingly Paul says, Rom. 7, 19: The good that I would I do
not; but the evil which I would not that I do. Likewise v. 25: With
the mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh, the law
of sin. Here he openly declares that he serves the law of sin. And
David says, Ps. 143, 2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for
in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. Here even a servant
of God prays for the averting of judgment. Likewise Ps. 32, 2:
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.
Therefore, in this our infirmity there is always present sin, which
could be imputed, and of which he says a little while after, v. 6:
For this shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee. Here he shows
that even saints ought to seek remission of sins. More than blind
are those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh are
sins, of which Paul, Gal. 5, 17, says: The flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. The flesh distrusts God,
trusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, even
contrary to God's will, flees from afflictions, which it ought to
bear because of God's commands, doubts concerning God's mercy, etc.
The Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [with
Adam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of the
old Adam, this desperately wicked disposition], and to produce new
spiritual movements. But concerning this topic we will collect more
testimonies below, although they are everywhere obvious not only in
the Scriptures, but also in the holy Fathers.
Well does Augustine say: All the commandments of God are fulfilled
when whatever is not done, is forgiven. Therefore he requires faith
even in good works [which the Holy Spirit produces in us], in order
that we may believe that for Christ's sake we please God, and that
even the works are not of themselves worthy and pleasing. And Jerome,
against the Pelagians, says: Then, therefore, we are righteous when
we confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness consists
not in our own merit, but in God's mercy. Therefore, in this
inchoate fulfilment of the Law, faith ought to be present, which is
certain that for Christ's sake we have a reconciled God. For mercy
cannot be apprehended unless by faith, as has been repeatedly said
above. [Therefore those who teach that we are not accepted by faith
for Christ's sake but for the sake of our own works, lead consciences
into despair.] Wherefore, when Paul says, Rom. 3, 31: We establish
the Law through faith, by this we ought to understand, not only that
those regenerated by faith receive the Holy Ghost, and have movements
agreeing with God's Law, but it is by far of the greatest importance
that we add also this, that we ought to perceive that we are far
distant from the perfection of the Law. Wherefore we cannot conclude
that we are accounted righteous before God because of our fulfilling
of the Law, but in order that the conscience may become tranquil,
justification must be sought elsewhere. For we are not righteous
before God as long as we flee from God's judgment, and are angry with
God. Therefore we must conclude that, being reconciled by faith, we
are accounted righteous for Christ's sake, not for the sake of the
Law or our works, but that this inchoate fulfilling of the Law
pleases on account of faith, and that, on account of faith, there is
no imputation of the imperfection of the fulfilling of the Law, even
though the sight of our impurity terrifies us. Now, if justification
is to be sought elsewhere, our love and works do not therefore
justify. Far above our purity, yea, far above the Law itself ought
to be placed the death and satisfaction of Christ, presented to us
that we might be sure that because of this satisfaction, and not
because of our fulfilling of the Law, we have a gracious God.
Paul teaches this in Gal. 3, 13, when he says: Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, i.e. the Law
condemns all men, but Christ, because without sin He has borne the
punishment of sin, and been made a victim for us has removed that
right of the Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him,
because He Himself is the propitiation for them for whose sake we are
now accounted righteous. But since they are accounted righteous, the
Law cannot accuse or condemn them, even though they have not actually
satisfied the Law. To the same purport he writes to the Colossians,
2, 10: Ye are complete in Him, as though he were to say: Although ye
are still far from the perfection of the Law, yet the remnants of sin
do not condemn you, because for Christ's sake we have a sure and firm
reconciliation, if you believe, even though sin inhere in your flesh.
The promise ought always to be in sight that God, because of His
promise, wishes for Christ's sake, and not because of the Law or our
works, to be gracious and to justify. In this promise timid
consciences ought to seek reconciliation and justification, by this
promise they ought to sustain themselves, and be confident that for
Christ's sake, because of His promise, they have a gracious God.
Thus works can never render a conscience pacified, but only the
promise can. If, therefore, justification and peace of conscience
must be sought elsewhere than in love and works, love and works do
not justify, although they are virtues and pertain to the
righteousness of the Law, in so far as they are a fulfilling of the
Law. So far also this obedience of the Law justifies by the
righteousness of the Law. But this imperfect righteousness of the
Law is not accepted by God, unless on account of faith. Accordingly
it does not justify, i.e., it neither reconciles, nor regenerates,
nor by itself renders us accepted before God.
From this it is evident that we are justified before God by faith
alone [i.e., it obtains the remission of sins and grace for Christ's
sake and regenerates us. Likewise, it is quite clear that by faith
alone the Holy Ghost is received; again, that our works and this
inchoate fulfilling of the Law do not by themselves please God. Now,
even if I abound in good works like Paul or Peter, I must seek my
righteousness elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the grace of
Christ, again, if only faith calms the conscience, it must, indeed be
certain that only faith justifies before God. For, if we wish to
teach correctly, we must adhere to this, that we are accepted with
God not on account of the Law, not on account of works, but for
Christ's sake. For the honor, due Christ, must not be given to the
Law or our-miserable works.] because by faith alone we receive
remission of sins and reconciliation, because reconciliation or
justification is a matter promised for Christ's sake, and not for the
sake of the Law. Therefore it is received by faith alone, although,
when the Holy Ghost is given, the fulfilling of the Law follows.
Part 7
_Reply to the Arguments of the Adversaries._
Now, when the grounds of this case have been understood, namely, the
distinction between the Law and the promises, or the Gospel, it will
be easy to resolve the objections of the adversaries. For they cite
passages concerning the Law and works, and omit passages concerning
the promises. But a reply can once for all be made to all opinions
concerning the Law, namely, that the Law cannot be observed without
Christ, and that if civil works are wrought without Christ, they do
not please God. [God is not pleased with the person.] Wherefore,
when works are commended, it is necessary to add that faith is
required, that they are commended on account of faith, that they are
the fruits and testimonies of faith. [This our doctrine is, indeed,
plain; it need not fear the light, and may be held against the Holy
Scriptures. We have also clearly and correctly presented it here, if
any will receive instruction and not knowingly deny the truth. For
rightly to understand the benefit of Christ and the great treasure of
the Gospel (which Paul extols so greatly), we must separate, on the
one hand, the promise of God and the grace that is offered, and, on
the other hand the Law, as far as the heavens are from the earth. In
shaky matters many explanations are needed, but in a good matter one
or two thoroughgoing explanations dissolve all objections which men
think they can raise.] Ambiguous and dangerous cases produce many and
various solutions. For the judgment of the ancient poet is true:
"An unjust cause, being In Itself sick, requires skilfully applied
remedies."
But in just and sure cases one or two explanations derived from the
sources correct all things that seem to offend. This occurs also in
this case of ours. For the rule which I have just recited, explains
all the passages that are cited concerning the Law and works [namely,
that without Christ the Law cannot be truly observed, and although
external works may be performed, still the person doing them does not
please God outside of Christ]. For we acknowledge that Scripture
teaches in some places the Law, and in other places the Gospel, or
the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ's sake.
But our adversaries absolutely abolish the free promise when they
deny that faith justifies, and teach that for the sake of love and of
our works we receive remission of sins and reconciliation. If the
remission of sins depends upon the condition of our works, it is
altogether uncertain. [For we can never be certain whether we do
enough works, or whether our works are sufficiently holy and pure.
Thus, too, the forgiveness of sins is made uncertain, and the promise
of God perishes, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 14: The promise is made of
none effect, and everything is rendered uncertain.] Therefore the
promise will be abolished. Hence we refer godly minds to the
consideration of the promises, and we teach concerning the free
remission of sins and concerning reconciliation, which occurs through
faith in Christ. Afterwards we add also the doctrine of the Law.
[Not that by the Law we merit the remission of sins, or that for the
sake of the Law we are accepted with God, but because God requires
good works.] And it is necessary to divide these things aright, as
Paul says, 2 Tim. 2, 15. We must see what Scripture ascribes to the
Law, and what to the promises. For it praises works in such a way as
not to remove the free promise [as to place the promise of God and
the true treasure, Christ, a thousand leagues above it].
For good works are to be done on account of God's command, likewise
for the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2, 10: We are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on account
of confession and giving of thanks. For these reasons good works
ought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in the
flesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of the
Holy Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account of
Christ, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining to
the government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before this
world. For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil,
and, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to the
kingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness,
declares His power. The dangers, labors, and sermons of the Apostle
Paul, of Athanasius, Augustine, and the like, who taught the churches,
are holy works, are true sacrifices acceptable to God, are contests
of Christ through which He repressed the devil, and drove him from
those who believed. David's labors, in waging wars and in his home
government, are holy works, are true sacrifices, are contests of God,
defending the people who had the Word of God against the devil, in
order that the knowledge of God might not be entirely extinguished on
earth. We think thus also concerning every good work in the humblest
callings and in private affairs. Through these works Christ
celebrates His victory over the devil, just as the distribution of
alms by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 16, 1, was a holy work and a
sacrifice and contest of Christ against the devil, who labors that
nothing may be done for the praise of God. To disparage such works,
the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications
of the flesh would be indeed to disparage the outward government of
Christ's kingdom among men. Here also we add something concerning
rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and
promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are
meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or
justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other
rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life
because Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own
reward, according to his own labor. There will, therefore, be
different rewards according to different labors. But the remission
of sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and is
offered freely to all who believe that for Christ's sake their sins
are remitted. Therefore the remission of sins and justification are
received only by faith, and not on account of any works, as is
evident in the terrors of conscience, because none of our works can
be opposed to God's wrath, as Paul clearly says, Rom. 5, 1: Being
justified by faith, toe have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom also we have access by faith, etc. But because faith
makes sons of God, it also makes coheirs with Christ. Therefore,
because by our works we do not merit justification, through which we
are made sons of God, and coheirs with Christ, we do not by our works
merit eternal life; for faith obtains this, because faith justifies
us and has a reconciled God. But eternal life is due the justified,
according to the passage Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He also
glorified. Paul, Eph. 6, 2, commends to us the commandment
concerning honoring parents, by mention of the reward which is added
to that commandment where he does not mean that obedience to parents
justifies us before God, but that, when it occurs in those who have
been justified, it merits other great rewards. Yet God exercises His
saints variously, and often defers the rewards of the righteousness
of works in order that they may learn not to trust in their own
righteousness, and may learn to seek the will of God rather than the
rewards, as appears in Job, in Christ, and other saints. And of this,
many psalms teach us, which console us against the happiness of the
wicked, as Ps. 37, 1: Neither be thou envious. And Christ says, Matt.
5, 10: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. By these praises of good works,
believers are undoubtedly moved to do good works. Meanwhile, the
doctrine of repentance is also proclaimed against the godless, whose
works are wicked; and the wrath of God is displayed, which He has
threatened all who do not repent. We therefore praise and require
good works, and show many reasons why they ought to be done.
Thus of works Paul also teaches when he says, Rom. 4, 9 sq., that
Abraham received circumcision, not in order that by this work he
might be justified; for by faith he had already attained it that he
was accounted righteous. But circumcision was added in order that he
might have in his body a written sign, admonished by which he might
exercise faith, and by which also he might confess his faith before
others, and by his testimony might invite others to believe. By
faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice, Heb. 11, 4.
Because, therefore, he was just by faith, the sacrifice which he made
was pleasing to God, not that by this work he merited the remission
of sins and grace, but that he exercised his faith and showed it to
others, in order to invite them to believe.
Although in this way good works ought to follow faith, men who cannot
believe and be sure that for Christ's sake they are freely forgiven,
and that freely for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God, employ
works far otherwise. When they see the works of saints, they judge
in a human manner that saints have merited the remission of sins and
grace through these works. Accordingly, they imitate them, and think
that through similar works they merit the remission of sins and grace;
they think that through these works they appease the wrath of God,
and attain that for the sake of these works they are accounted
righteous. This godless opinion concerning works we condemn. In the
first place, because it obscures the glory of Christ when men offer
to God these works as a price and propitiation. This honor, due to
Christ alone, is ascribed to our works. Secondly, they nevertheless
do not find, in these works, peace of conscience, but in true terrors,
heaping up works upon works, they at length despair because they
find no work sufficiently pure [sufficiently important and precious
to propitiate God, to obtain with certainty eternal life, in a word,
to tranquilize and pacify the conscience]. The Law always accuses,
and produces wrath. Thirdly, such persons never attain the knowledge
of God [nor of His will]; for, as in anger they flee from God, who
judges and afflicts them, they never believe that they are heard.
But faith manifests the presence of God, since it is certain that God
freely forgives and hears us.
Moreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed in
the world [sticks to the world quite tightly]. The heathen had
sacrifices, derived from the fathers. They imitated their works.
Their faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were a
propitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled to
them. The people in the law [the Israelites] imitated sacrifices
with the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God,
so to say, _ex opere operato_. We see here how earnestly the
prophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50, 8: I will not reprove thee for
thy sacrifices, and Jer. 7, 22: I spake not unto your fathers
concerning burnt offerings. Such passages condemn not works, which
God certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government,
but they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thought
that by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and thus cast
away faith. And because no works pacify the conscience, new works,
in addition to God's commands, were from time to time devised [the
hypocrites nevertheless used to invent one work after another, one
sacrifice after another, by a blind guess and in reckless wantonness,
and all this without the word and command of God, with wicked
conscience as we have seen in the Papacy]. The people of Israel had
seen the prophets sacrificing on high places [and in groves].
Besides, the examples of the saints very greatly move the minds of
those, hoping by similar works to obtain grace just as these saints
obtained it. [But the saints believed.] Wherefore the people began,
with remarkable zeal, to imitate this work, in order that by such a
work [they might appease the wrath of God] they might merit remission
of sins, grace, and righteousness. But the prophets had been
sacrificing on high places, not that by these works they might merit
the remission of sins and grace, but because on these places they
taught, and, accordingly, presented there a testimony of their faith.
The people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son. Wherefore
they also, in order to appease God by a most cruel and difficult work,
put to death their sons. But Abraham did not sacrifice his son with
the opinion that this work was a price and propitiatory work for the
sake of which he was accounted righteous. Thus in the Church the
Lord's Supper was instituted that by remembrance of the promises of
Christ, of which we are admonished in this sign, faith might be
strengthened in us, and we might publicly confess our faith, and
proclaim the benefits of Christ, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As
often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death, etc. But our adversaries contend that the mass is a work that
justifies us _ex opere operato_, and removes the guilt and liability
to punishment in those for whom it is celebrated, for thus writes
Gabriel.
Anthony, Bernard, Dominicus, Franciscus, and other holy Fathers
selected a certain kind of life either for the sake of study [of more
readily reading the Holy Scriptures] or other useful exercises. In
the mean time they believed that by faith they were accounted
righteous for Christ's sake, and that God was gracious to them, not
on account of those exercises of their own. But the multitude since
then has imitated not the faith of the Fathers, but their example
without faith, in order that by such works they might merit the
remission of sins, grace, and righteousness: they did not believe
that they received these freely on account of Christ as Propitiator.
[Thus the human mind always exalts works too highly, and puts them in
the wrong place. And this error the Gospel reproves which teaches
that men are accounted righteous not for the sake of the Law, but for
the sake of Christ alone. Christ, however, is apprehended by faith
alone; wherefore we are accounted righteous by faith alone for
Christ's sake.] Thus the world judges of all works that they are a
propitiation by which God is appeased; that they are a price because
of which we are accounted righteous. It does not believe that Christ
is Propitiator; it does not believe that by faith we freely attain
that we are accounted righteous for Christ's sake. And, nevertheless,
since works cannot pacify the conscience, others are continually
chosen, new rites are performed, new vows made, and new orders of
monks formed beyond the command of God, in order that some great work
may be sought which may be set against the wrath and judgment of God.
Contrary to Scripture, the adversaries uphold these godless opinions
concerning works. But to ascribe to our works these things, namely,
that they are a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins
and grace that for the sake of these and not by faith for the sake of
Christ as Propitiator we are accounted righteous before God, what
else is this than to deny Christ the honor of Mediator and
Propitiator? Although, therefore, we believe and teach that good
works must necessarily be done (for the inchoate fulfilling of the
Law ought to follow faith), nevertheless we give to Christ His own
honor. We believe and teach that by faith, for Christ's sake, we are
accounted righteous before God, that we are not accounted righteous
because of works without Christ as Mediator, that by works we do not
merit the remission of sins, grace, and righteousness, that we cannot
set our works against the wrath and justice of God, that works cannot
overcome the terrors of sin, but that the terrors of sin are overcome
by faith alone, that only Christ the Mediator is to be presented by
faith against the wrath and judgment of God. If any one think
differently, he does not give Christ due honor, who has been set
forth that He might be a Propitiator, that through Him we might have
access to the Father. We are speaking now of the righteousness
through which we treat with God not with men, but by which we
apprehend grace and peace of conscience. Conscience however, cannot
be pacified before God, unless by faith alone, which is certain that
God for Christ's sake is reconciled to us, according to Rom. 5, 1:
Being justified by faith, we have peace because justification is only
a matter freely promised for Christ's sake, and therefore is always
received before God by faith alone.
Now, then, we will reply to those passages which the adversaries cite,
in order to prove that we are justified by love and works. From 1
Cor. 13, 2 they cite: Though I have all faith, etc., and hove not
charity, I am nothing. And here they triumph greatly. Paul
testifies to the entire Church, they say, that faith alone does not
justify. But a reply is easy after we have shown above what we hold
concerning love and works. This passage of Paul requires love. We
also require this. For we have said above that renewal and the
inchoate fulfilling of the Law must exist in us, according to Jer. 31,
33: 1 will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts. If any one should cast away love, even though he have great
faith, yet he does not retain it, for he does not retain the Holy
Ghost [he becomes cold and is now again fleshly, without Spirit and
faith; for the Holy Ghost is not where Christian love and other
fruits of the Spirit are not]. Nor indeed does Paul in this passage
treat of the mode of justification, but he writes to those who, after
they had been justified, should be urged to bring forth good fruits
lest they might lose the Holy Ghost. The adversaries, furthermore,
treat the matter preposterously: they cite this one passage, in which
Paul teaches concerning fruits, they omit very many other passages,
in which in a regular order he discusses the mode of justification.
Besides, they always add a correction to the other passages, which
treat of faith, namely, that they ought to be understood as applying
to _fides formata_. Here they add no correction that there is also
need of the faith that holds that we are accounted righteous for the
sake of Christ as Propitiator. Thus the adversaries exclude Christ
from justification, and teach only a righteousness of the Law. But
let us return to Paul. No one can infer anything more from this text
than that love is necessary. This we confess. So also not to commit
theft is necessary. But the reasoning will not be correct if some
one would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: "Not to
commit theft is necessary. Therefore, not to commit theft justifies."
Because justification is not the approval of a certain work, but of
the entire person. Hence this passage from Paul does not harm us;
only the adversaries must not in imagination add to it whatever they
please. For he does not say that love justifies, but: ["And if I
have not love"] "I am nothing," namely, that faith, however great it
may have been, is extinguished. He does not say that love overcomes
the terrors of sin and of death that we can set our love against the
wrath and judgment of God, that our love satisfies God's Law, that
without Christ as Propitiator we have access, by our love, to God,
that by our love we receive the promised remission of sins. Paul
says nothing of this. He does not, therefore, think that love
justifies, because we are justified only when we apprehend Christ as
Propitiator, and believe that for Christ's sake God is reconciled to
us. Neither is justification even to be dreamed of with the omission
of Christ as Propitiator. If there be no need of Christ, if by our
love we can overcome death, if by our love, without Christ as
Propitiator' we have access to God, then let our adversaries remove
the promise concerning Christ, then let them abolish the Gospel
[which teaches that we have access to God through Christ as
Propitiator, and that we are accepted not for the sake of our
fulfilling of the Law, but for Christ's sake]. The adversaries
corrupt very many passages, because they bring to them their own
opinions, and do not derive the meaning from the passages themselves.
For what difficulty is there in this passage if we remove the
interpretation which the adversaries, who do not understand what
justification is or how it occurs [what faith is, what Christ is, or
how a man is justified before God], out of their own mind attach to
it? The Corinthians, being justified before, had received many
excellent gifts. In the beginning they glowed with zeal, just as is
generally the case. Then dissensions [factions and sects] began to
arise among them as Paul indicates; they began to dislike good
teachers. Accordingly, Paul reproves them, recalling them [to unity
and] to offices of love. Although these are necessary, yet it would
be foolish to imagine that works of the Second Table, through which
we have to do with man and not properly with God, justify us. But in
justification we have to treat with God; His wrath must be appeased,
and conscience must be pacified with respect to God. None of these
occur through the works of the Second Table [by love, but only by
faith, which apprehends Christ and the promise of God. However, it
is true that losing love involves losing the Spirit and faith. And
thus Paul says: If I have not love, I am nothing. But he does not
add the affirmative statement, that love justifies in the sight of
God].
But they object that love is preferred to faith and hope. For Paul
says, 1 Cor. 13, 13: The greatest of these is charity. Now, it is
reasonable that the greatest and chief virtue should justify,
although Paul, in this passage, properly speaks of love towards one's
neighbor, and indicates that love is the greatest, because it has
most fruits. Faith and hope have to do only with God; but love has
infinite offices externally towards men. [Love goes forth upon earth
among the people, and does much good, by consoling, teaching,
instructing, helping, counseling privately and publicly.]
Nevertheless, let us, indeed, grant to the adversaries that love
towards God and our neighbor is the greatest virtue, because the
chief commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God Matt. 22,
37. But how will they infer thence that love justifies? The
greatest virtue, they say, justifies. By no means. [It would be
true if we had a gracious God because of our virtue. Now, it was
proven above that we are accepted and justified for Christ's sake,
not because of our virtue, for our virtue is impure.] For just as
even the greatest or first Law does not justify, so also the greatest
virtue of the Law does not justify. [For, as the Law and virtue is
higher, and our ability to do the same proportionately lower, we are
not righteous because of love.] But that virtue justifies which
apprehends Christ, which communicates to us Christ's merits, by which
we receive grace and peace from God. But this virtue is faith. For
as it has been often said, faith is not only knowledge, but much
rather willing to receive or apprehend those things which are offered
in the promise concerning Christ. Moreover this obedience towards
God, namely, to wish to receive the offered promise, is no less a
divine service, _latreia_, than is love. God wishes us to believe
Him, and to receive from Him blessings, and this He declares to be
true divine service.
But the adversaries ascribe justification to love because they
everywhere teach and require the righteousness of the Law. For we
cannot deny that love is the highest work of the Law. And human
wisdom gazes at the Law, and seeks in it justification. Accordingly,
also the scholastic doctors, great and talented men, proclaim this as
the highest work of the Law, and ascribe to this work justification.
But deceived by human wisdom, they did not look upon the uncovered,
but upon the veiled face of Moses, just as the Pharisees,
philosophers, Mahometans. But we preach the foolishness of the
Gospel, in which another righteousness is revealed, namely, that for
the sake of Christ, as Propitiator, we are accounted righteous, when
we believe that for Christ's sake God has been reconciled to us.
Neither are we ignorant how far distant this doctrine is from the
judgment of reason and of the Law. Nor are we ignorant that the
doctrine of the Law concerning love makes a much greater show; for it
is wisdom. But we are not ashamed of the foolishness of the Gospel.
For the sake of Christ's glory we defend this, and beseech Christ, by
His Holy Ghost, to aid us that we may be able to make this clear and
manifest.
The adversaries, in the Confutation, have also cited against us Col.
3, 14: Charity, which is the bond of perfectness. From this they
infer that love justifies because it renders men perfect. Although a
reply concerning perfection could here be made in many ways, yet we
will simply recite the meaning of Paul. It is certain that Paul
spoke of love towards one's neighbor. Neither must we indeed think
that Paul would ascribe either justification or perfection to the
works of the Second Table, rather than to those of the First. And if
love render men perfect, there will then be no need of Christ as
Propitiator, [However, Paul teaches in all places that we are
accepted on account of Christ, and not on account of our love, or our
works, or of the Law; for no saint (as was stated before) perfectly
fulfils the Law. Therefore since he in all places writes and teaches
that in this life there is no perfection in our works, it is not to
be thought that he speaks here of personal perfection.] for faith
apprehends Christ only as Propitiator. This, however, is far distant
from the meaning of Paul, who never suffers Christ to be excluded as
Propitiator. Therefore he speaks not of personal perfection, but of
the integrity common to the Church [concerning the unity of the
Church and the word which they interpret as perfection means nothing
else than to be not rent]. For on this account he says that love is
a bond or connection, to signify that he speaks of the binding and
joining together, with each other, of the many members of the Church.
For just as in all families and in all states concord should be
nourished by mutual offices, and tranquillity cannot be retained
unless men overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves; so
Paul commands that there should be love in the Church in order that
it may preserve concord, bear with the harsher manners of brethren as
there is need, overlook certain less serious mistakes, lest the
Church fly apart into various schisms, and enmities and factions and
heresies arise from the schisms.
For concord must necessarily he rent asunder whenever either the
bishops impose [without cause] upon the people heavier burdens, or
have no respect to weakness in the people. And dissensions arise
when the people judge too severely [quickly censure and criticize]
concerning the conduct [walk and life] of teachers [bishops or
preachers], or despise the teachers because of certain less serious
faults; for then both another kind of doctrine and other teachers are
sought after. On the other hand, perfection, i.e., the integrity of
the Church, is preserved, when the strong bear with the weak, when
the people take in good part some faults in the conduct of their
teachers [have patience also with their preachers], when the bishops
make some allowances for the weakness of the people [know how to
exercise forbearance to the people, according to circumstances, with
respect to all kinds of weaknesses and faults]. Of these precepts of
equity the books of all the wise are full, namely, that in every day
life we should make many allowances mutually for the sake of common
tranquillity. And of this Paul frequently teaches both here and
elsewhere. Wherefore the adversaries argue indiscreetly from the
term "perfection" that love justifies, while Paul speaks of common
integrity and tranquillity. And thus Ambrose interprets this passage:
Just as a building is said to be perfect or entire when all its
parts are fitly joined together with one another. Moreover, it is
disgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much concerning love
while they nowhere exhibit it. What are they now doing? They are
rending asunder churches, they are writing laws in blood, and are
proposing to the most clement prince, the Emperor, that these should
be promulgated; they are slaughtering priests and other good men, if
any one have [even] slightly intimated that he does not entirely
approve some manifest abuse. [They wish all dead who say a single
word against their godless doctrine.] These things are not consistent
with those declamations of love, which if the adversaries would
follow, the churches would be tranquil and the state have peace. For
these tumults would be quieted if the adversaries would not insist
with too much bitterness [from sheer vengeful spite and pharisaical
envy, against the truth which they have perceived] upon certain
traditions, useless for godliness, most of which not even those very
persons observe who most earnestly defend them. But they easily
forgive themselves, and yet do not likewise forgive others, according
to the passage in the poet: I forgive myself, Maevius said. But this
is very far distant from those encomiums of love which they here
recite from Paul, nor do they understand the word any more than the
walls which give it back. From Peter they cite also this sentence, 1
Pet. 4, 8: Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. It is evident
that also Peter speaks of love towards one's neighbor, because he
joins this passage to the precept by which he commands that they
should love one another. Neither could it have come into the mind of
any apostle that our love overcomes sin and death; that love is the
propitiation on account of which to the exclusion of Christ as
Mediator, God is reconciled; that love is righteousness without
Christ as Mediator. For this love, if there would be any, would be a
righteousness of the Law, and not of the Gospel, which promises to us
reconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, for the sake of
Christ as Propitiator, the Father has been reconciled, and that the
merits of Christ are bestowed upon us. Peter, accordingly, urges us,
a little before, to come to Christ that we may be built upon Christ.
And he adds, 1 Pet. 2, 4-6: He that believeth on Him shall not be
confounded. When God judges and convicts us, our love does not free
us from confusion [from our works and lives, we truly suffer shame].
But faith in Christ liberates us in these fears, because we know that
for Christ's sake we are forgiven.
Besides, this sentence concerning love is derived from Prov. 10,12,
where the antithesis clearly shows how it ought to be understood:
Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins. It teaches
precisely the same thing as that passage of Paul taken from
Colossians, that if any dissensions would occur, they should be
moderated and settled by our equitable and lenient conduct.
Dissensions, it says, increase by means of hatred, as we often see
that from the most trifling offenses tragedies arise [from the
smallest sparks a great conflagration arises]. Certain trifling
offenses occurred between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which, if the
one had yielded a very little to the other, civil war would not have
arisen. But while each indulged his own hatred, from a matter of no
account the greatest commotions arose. And many heresies have arisen
in the Church only from the hatred of the teachers. Therefore it
does not refer to a person's own faults, but to the faults of others,
when it says: Charity covereth sins, namely, those of others, and
that, too, among men, i.e., even though these offenses occur, yet
love overlooks them, forgives, yields, and does not carry all things
to the extremity of justice. Peter, therefore, does not mean that
love merits in God's sight the remission of sins, that it is a
propitiation to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, that it
regenerates and justifies, but that it is not morose, harsh,
intractable towards men, that it overlooks some mistakes of its
friends, that it takes in good part even the harsher manners of
others, just as the well-known maxim enjoins: Know, but do rot hate,
the manners of a fiend. Nor was it without design that the apostle
taught so frequently concerning this office what the philosophers
call epieicheia, leniency. For this virtue is necessary for
retaining public harmony [in the Church and the civil government],
which cannot last unless pastors and Churches mutually overlook and
pardon many things [if they want to be extremely particular about
every defect, and do not allow many things to flow by without
noticing them].
From James they cite 2, 24: Ye see, then how by works a man is
justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed
to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain.
If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the
merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of
disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the
adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of
good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a
propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us;
that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death; that good
works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and
that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all
these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries
nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.
In the first place, then, we must ponder this, namely, that the
passage is more against the adversaries than against us. For the
adversaries teach that man is justified by love and works. Of faith,
by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing. Yea
they condemn this faith; nor do they condemn it only in sentences and
writings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavor
to exterminate it in the Church. How much better does James teach,
who does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, but
retains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded as
Propitiator! Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of the
Christian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1, 5: The end of the
commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience,
and of faith unfeigned.
Secondly, the subject itself declares that here such works are spoken
of as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living and
efficacious in the heart. James, therefore, did not believe that by
good works we merit the remission of sins and grace. For he speaks
of the works of those who have been justified, who have already been
reconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins.
Wherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches that
we merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by our
works we have access to God, without Christ as Propitiator.
Part 8
Thirdly, James has spoken shortly before concerning regeneration,
namely, that it occurs through the Gospel. For thus he says 1, 18:
Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be
a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. When he says that we have
been born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born
again and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ is
apprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sin
and of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are born
again by our works.
From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who,
when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have
faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead
and living faith. He says that that is dead which does not bring
forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit: obedience, patience,
chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good
works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term
faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the
history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but
of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and
consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy
Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of
death, of sin, etc.]. Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the
adversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to
believe! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for
myself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which
we overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians,
2, 12, that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and
overcomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith
of the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, it
necessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a new
light and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and
spirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.]
Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such
a faith as is without works. But when he says that we are justified
by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again
by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our
Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he
describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just
are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he
is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well
said: He who has faith and good works is righteous; not, indeed, on
account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a
good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not
make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although
they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first
be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for
Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God
gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for
Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and
does not say that by our works we merit, etc.] And here to be
justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked
man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in
the passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As,
therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified,
contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe
concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not
by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly
pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints
are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends
only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of
Abraham, 2, 21: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is
said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced
righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good
fruits which please Him on account of faith, and accordingly, are the
fulfilment of the Law. These things, simply spoken, contain nothing
erroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries who attach to
them godless opinions out of their mind. For it does not follow
hence that works merit the remission of sins; that works regenerate
hearts; that works are a propitiation, that works please without
Christ as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator.
James says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, the
adversaries shamelessly infer from the words of James.
Certain other passages concerning works are also cited against us.
Luke 6, 37: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Is. 58, 7 [9]: Is it
not to deal thy bread to the hungry?...Then shalt thou call, and the
Lord will answer. Dan. 4, 24 [27]: Break off thy sins, by showing
mercy to the poor. Matt. 5, 3: Blessed are the poor in spirit; for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven; and v. 7: Blessed are the merciful;
for they shall obtain mercy. Even these passages would contain
nothing contrary to us if the adversaries would not falsely attach
something to them. For they contain two things: The one is a
preaching either of the Law or of repentance, which not only convicts
those doing wrong, but also enjoins them to do what is right; the
other is a promise which is added. But it is not added that sins are
remitted without faith, or that works themselves are a propitiation.
Moreover, in the preaching of the Law these two things ought always
to be understood, namely: First, that the Law cannot be observed
unless we have been regenerated by faith in Christ, just as Christ
says, John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing. Secondly, and though
some external works can certainly be done, this general judgment:
Without faith it is impossible to please God, which interprets the
whole Law, must be retained: and the Gospel must be retained, that
through Christ we have access to the Father, Heb. 10, 19, Rom. 5, 2.
For it is evident that we are not justified by the Law. Otherwise,
why would there be need of Christ or the Gospel, if the preaching of
the Law alone would be sufficient? Thus in the preaching of
repentance, the preaching of the Law, or the Word convicting of sin,
is not sufficient, because the Law works wrath, and only accuses,
only terrifies consciences, because consciences never are at rest,
unless they hear the voice of God in which the remission of sins is
clearly promised. Accordingly, the Gospel must be added, that for
Christ's sake sins are remitted, and that we obtain remission of sins
by faith in Christ. If the adversaries exclude the Gospel of Christ
from the preaching of repentance, they are judged aright to be
blasphemers against Christ.
Therefore, when Isaiah, 1, 16. 18, preaches repentance: Cease to do
evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge
the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now and let us reason
together, saith the Lord; though your sine be as scarlet, they shall
be white as snow, the prophet thus both exhorts to repentance, and
adds the promise. But it would be foolish to consider in such a
sentence only the words: Relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless.
For he says in the beginning: Cease to do evil, where he censures
impiety of heart and requires faith. Neither does the prophet say
that through the works: Relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless,
they can merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, but he
commands such works as are necessary in the new life. Yet, in the
mean time, he means that remission of sins is received by faith, and
accordingly the promise is added. Thus we must understand all
similar passages. Christ preaches repentance when He says: Forgive,
and He adds the promise: And ye shall be forgiven, Luke 6, 37. Nor,
indeed, does He say this, namely, that, when we forgive, by this work
of ours we merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, as they
term it, but He requires a new life, which certainly is necessary.
Yet, in the mean time He means that remission of sins is received by
faith. Thus, when Isaiah says, 58, 7: Deal thy bread to the hungry,
he requires a new life. Nor does the prophet speak of this work
alone, but, as the text indicates, of the entire repentance; yet, in
the mean time, he intends that remission of sins is received by faith.
For the position is sure, and none of the gates of hell can
overthrow it, that in the preaching of repentance the preaching of
the Law is not sufficient, because the Law works wrath and always
accuses. But the preaching of the Gospel should be added, namely,
that in this way remission of sins is granted us, if we believe that
sins are remitted us for Christ's sake. Otherwise, why would there
be need of the Gospel, why would there be need of Christ? This
belief ought always to be in view, in order that it may be opposed to
those who, Christ being cast aside and the Gospel being blotted out,
wickedly distort the Scriptures to the human opinions, that by our
works we purchase remission of sins.
Thus also in the sermon of Daniel, 4, 24, faith is required. [The
words of the prophet which were full of faith and spirit, we must not
regard as heathenish as those of Aristotle or any other heathen.
Aristotle also admonished Alexander that he should not use his power
for his own wantonness, but for the improvement of countries and men.
This was written correctly and well; concerning the office of king
nothing better can be preached or written. But Daniel is speaking to
his king, not only concerning his office as king, but concerning
repentance, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to God, and
concerning sublime, great, spiritual subjects, which far transcend
human thoughts and works.] For Daniel did not mean that the king
should only bestow alms [which even a hypocrite can do], but embraces
repentance when he says: Break off [Redeem, Vulg.] thy iniquities by
showing mercy to the poor, i.e. break off thy sins by a change of
heart and works. But here also faith is required. And Daniel
proclaims to him many things concerning the worship of the only God,
the God of Israel, and converts the king not only to bestow alms, but
much more to faith. For we have the excellent confession of the king
concerning the God of Israel: There is no other God that can deliver
after this sort Dan. 3, 29. Therefore, in the sermon of Daniel there
are two parts. The one part is that which gives commandment
concerning the new life and the works of the new life. The other
part is, that Daniel promises to the king the remission of sins.
[Now, where there is a promise, faith is required. For the promise
cannot be received in any other way than by the heart's relying on
such word of God, and not regarding its own worthiness or
unworthiness. Accordingly, Daniel also demands faith: for thus the
promise reads: There will be healing for thy offenses.] And this
promise of the remission of sins is not a preaching of the Law, but a
truly prophetical and evangelical voice, of which Daniel certainly
meant that it should be received in faith. For Daniel knew that the
remission of sins in Christ was promised not only to the Israelites,
but also to all nations. Otherwise he could not have promised to the
king the remission of sins. For it is not in the power of man
especially amid the terrors of sin, to assert without a sure word of
God concerning God's will, that He ceases to be angry. And the words
of Daniel speak in his own language still more clearly of repentance
and still more clearly bring out the promise. Redeem thy sins by
righteousness and thy iniquities by favors toward the poor. These
words teach concerning the whole of repentance. [It is as much as to
say: Amend your life! And it is true, when we amend our lives, we
become rid of sin.] For they direct him to become righteous, then to
do good works, to defend the miserable against injustice, as was the
duty of a king. But righteousness is faith in the heart. Moreover,
sins are redeemed by repentance, i.e. the obligation or guilt is
removed, because God forgives those who repent, as it is written in
Ezek. 18, 21. 22. Nor are we to infer from this that He forgives on
account of works that follow, on account of alms, but on account of
His promise He forgives those who apprehend His promise. Neither do
any apprehend His promise, except those who truly believe, and by
faith overcome sin and death. These, being regenerated, ought to
bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, just as John says, Matt. 3,
8. The promise, therefore, was added: So, there will be healing for
thy offenses, Dan. 4, 24. [Daniel does not only demand works, but
says: Redeem thy sins by righteousness. Now, everybody knows that in
Scripture righteousness does not mean only external works, but
embraces faith, as Paul says: _Iustus ex fide vivet_? The just shall
live by his faith, Heb. 10, 38. Hence, Daniel first demands faith
when he mentions righteousness and says: Redeem thy sins by
righteousness, that is, by faith toward God, by which thou art made
righteous. In addition to this do good works, administer your office,
do not be a tyrant, but see that your government be profitable to
your country and people, preserve peace, and protect the poor against
unjust force. These are princely alms.] Jerome here added a particle
expressing doubt, that is beside the matter, and in his commentaries
contends much more unwisely that the remission of sins is uncertain.
But let us remember that the Gospel gives a sure promise of the
remission of sins. And to deny that there must be a sure promise of
the remission of sins would completely abolish the Gospel. Let us
therefore dismiss Jerome concerning this passage. Although the
promise is displayed even in the word redeem. For it signifies that
the remission of sins is possible that sins can be redeemed, i.e.,
that their obligation or guilt can be removed, or the wrath of God
appeased. But our adversaries, overlooking the promises, everywhere,
consider only the precepts, and attach falsely the human opinion that
remission occurs on account of works, although the text does not say
this, but much rather requires faith. For wherever a promise is,
there faith is required. For a promise cannot be received unless by
faith. [The same answer must also be given in reference to the
passage from the Gospel: Forgive, and you will be forgiven. For this
is just such a doctrine of repentance. The first part in this
passage demands amendment of life and good works, the other part adds
the promise. Nor are we to infer from this that our forgiving merits
for us _ex opere operato_ remission of sin. For that is not what
Christ says, but as in other sacraments Christ has attached the
promise to an external sign, so He attaches the promise of the
forgiveness of sin in this place to external good works. And as in
the Lord's Supper we do not obtain forgiveness of sin without faith,
_ex opere operato_, so neither in this when we forgive. For, our
forgiving is not a good work, except it is performed by a person
whose sins have been previously forgiven by God in Christ. If,
therefore, our forgiving is to please God, it must follow after the
forgiveness which God extends to us. For, as a rule, Christ combines
these two, the Law and the Gospel, both faith and good works, in
order to indicate that, where good works do not follow, there is no
faith either that we may have external marks, which remind us of the
Gospel and the forgiveness of sin, for our comfort and that thus our
faith may be exercised in many ways. In this manner we are to
understand such passages, otherwise they would directly contradict
the entire Gospel, and our beggarly works would be put in the place
of Christ, who alone is to be the propitiation, which no man is by
any means to despise. Again, if these passages were to be understood
as relating to works, the remission of sins would be quite uncertain;
for it would rest on a poor foundation, on our miserable works.]
But works become conspicuous among men. Human reason naturally
admires these, and because it sees only works, and does not
understand or consider faith, it dreams accordingly that these works
merit remission of sins and justify. This opinion of the Law inheres
by nature in men's minds; neither can it be expelled, unless when we
are divinely taught. But the mind must be recalled from such carnal
opinions to the Word of God. We see that the Gospel and the promise
concerning Christ have been laid before us. When, therefore, the Law
is preached, when works are enjoined, we should not spurn the promise
concerning Christ. But the latter must first be apprehended, in
order that we may be able to produce good works, and our works may
please God, as Christ says, John 16; 5: With out Me ye can do nothing.
Therefore, if Daniel would have used such words as these: "Redeem
your sins by repentance," the adversaries would take no notice of
this passage. Now, since he has actually expressed this thought in
apparently other words, the adversaries distort his words to the
injury of the doctrine of grace and faith, although Daniel meant most
especially to include faith. Thus, therefore, we reply to the words
of Daniel, that, inasmuch as he is preaching repentance, he is
teaching not only of works, but also of faith, as the narrative
itself in the context testifies. Secondly, because Daniel clearly
presents the promise, he necessarily requires faith which believes
that sins are freely remitted by God. Although, therefore, in
repentance he mentions works, yet Daniel does not say that by these
works we merit remission of sins. For Daniel speaks not only of the
remission of the punishment; because remission of the punishment is
sought for in vain unless the heart first receive the remission of
guilt. Besides, if the adversaries understand Daniel as speaking
only of the remission of punishment, this passage will prove nothing
against us, because it will thus be necessary for even them to
confess that the remission of sin and free justification precede.
Afterwards even we concede that the punishments by which we are
chastised, are mitigated by our prayers and good works, and finally
by our entire repentance, according to 1 Cor. 11, 31: For if we would
judge ourselves, we should not be judged. And Jer. 15, 19: If thou
return, then will I bring thee again. And Zech. 1, 3: Turn ye unto
Me, and I will turn unto you. And Ps. 50, 15: Call upon Me in the
day of trouble.
Let us, therefore, in all our encomiums upon works and in the
preaching of the Law retain this rule: that the Law is not observed
without Christ. As He Himself has said: Without Me ye can do nothing.
Likewise that: Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb.
11, 6. For it is very certain that the doctrine of the Law is not
intended to remove the Gospel, and to remove Christ as Propitiator.
And let the Pharisees, our adversaries, be cursed, who so interpret
the Law as to ascribe the glory of Christ to works namely, that they
are a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins. It
follows, therefore, that works are always thus praised, namely, that
they are pleasing on account of faith, as works do not please without
Christ as Propitiator. By Him we have access to God, Rom. 5, 2, not
by works, without Christ as Mediator. Therefore, when it is said,
Matt. 19, 17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, we
must believe that without Christ the commandments are not kept, and
without Him cannot please. Thus in the Decalog itself, in the First
Commandment Ex. 20, 6: Showing mercy unto thousands of them that love
Me and keep My commandments, the most liberal promise of the Law is
added. But this Law is not observed without Christ. For it always
accuses the conscience which does not satisfy the Law, and therefore
in terror, flies from the judgment and punishment of the Law.
Because the Law worketh wrath, Rom. 4, 15. Man observes the Law,
however, when he hears that for Christ's sake God is reconciled to us,
even though we cannot satisfy the Law. When, by this faith, Christ
is apprehended as Mediator, the heart finds rest, and begins to love
God and observe the Law, and knows that now, because of Christ as
Mediator, it is pleasing to God, even though the inchoate fulfilling
of the Law be far from perfection and be very impure. Thus we must
judge also concerning the preaching of repentance. For although in
the doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all
concerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad
as to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolution
ought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the
terrified conscience.
Therefore the doctrine of repentance, because it not only commands
new works, but also promises the remission of sins, necessarily
requires faith. For the remission of sins is not received unless by
faith. Therefore, in those passages that refer to repentance, we
should always understand that not only works, but also faith is
required, as in Matt. 6, 14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses,
your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Here a work is required,
and the promise of the remission of sins is added which does not
occur on account of the work, but through faith, on account of Christ.
Just as Scripture testifies in many passages: Acts 10, 43: To Him
give all the prophets witness that through His name, whosoever
believeth in Him, shall receive remission of sins; and 1 John 2, 12:
Your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake; Eph. 1, 7: In whom we
have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins. Although
what need is there to recite testimonies? This is the very voice
peculiar to the Gospel, namely, that for Christ's sake, and not for
the sake of our works, we obtain by faith remission of sins. Our
adversaries endeavor to suppress this voice of the Gospel by means of
distorted passages which contain the doctrine of the Law, or of works.
For it is true that in the doctrine of repentance works are
required, because certainly a new life is required. But here the
adversaries wrongly add that by such works we merit the remission of
sins, or justification. And yet Christ often connects the promise of
the remission of sins to good works not because He means that good
works are a propitiation, for they follow reconciliation; but for two
reasons. One is, because good fruits must necessarily follow.
Therefore He reminds us that, if good fruits do not follow the
repentance is hypocritical and feigned. The other reason is, because
we have need of external signs of so great a promise, because a
conscience full of fear has need of manifold consolation. As,
therefore, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs that continually
admonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the more
firmly that their sins are forgiven, so the same promise is written
and portrayed in good works, in order that these works may admonish
us to believe the more firmly. And those who produce no good works
do not excite themselves to believe, but despise these promises. The
godly on the other hand, embrace them, and rejoice that they have the
signs and testimonies of so great a promise. Accordingly, they
exercise themselves in these signs and testimonies. Just as,
therefore, the Lord's Supper does not justify us _ex opere operato_,
without faith, so alms do not justify us without faith, _ex opere
operato_.
So also the address of Tobias, 4, 11, ought to be received: Alms free
from every sin and from death. We will not say that this is
hyperbole, although it ought thus to be received, so as not to
detract from the praise of Christ, whose prerogative it is to free
from sin and death. But we must come back to the rule that without
Christ the doctrine of the Law is of no profit. Therefore those alms
please God which follow reconciliation or justification, and not
those which precede. Therefore they free from sin and death, not _ex
opere operato_, but, as we have said above concerning repentance,
that we ought to embrace faith and its fruits, so here we must say
concerning alms that this entire newness of life saves [that they
please God because they occur in believers]. Alms also are the
exercises of faith, which receives the remission of sins and
overcomes death, while it exercises itself more and more, and in
these exercises receives strength. We grant also this, that alms
merit many favors from God [but they cannot overcome death, hell, the
devil, sins, and give the conscience peace (for this must occur alone
through faith in Christ)], mitigate punishments, and that they merit
our defense in the dangers of sins and of death, as we have said a
little before concerning the entire repentance. [This is the simple
meaning, which agrees also with other passages of Scripture. For
wherever in the Scriptures good works are praised, we must always
understand them according to the rule of Paul, that the Law and works
must not be elevated above Christ, but that Christ and faith are as
far above all works as the heavens are above the earth.] And the
address of Tobias, regarded as a whole shows that faith is required
before alms, 4, 5: Be mindful of the Lord, thy God, all thy days And
afterwards, v. 19. Bless the Lord, thy God, always, and desire of Him
that thy ways be directed. This, however, belongs properly to that
faith of which we speak, which believes that God is reconciled to it
because of His mercy, and which wishes to be justified, sanctified,
and governed by God. But our adversaries, charming men, pick out
mutilated sentences, in order to deceive those who are unskilled.
Afterwards they attach something from their own opinions. Therefore,
entire passages are to be required, because, according to the common
precept, it is unbecoming, before the entire Law is thoroughly
examined, to judge or reply when any single clause of it is presented.
And passages, when produced in their entirety, very frequently
bring the interpretation with them.
Luke 11, 41 is also cited in a mutilated form, namely: Give alms of
such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
The adversaries are very stupid [are deaf, and have callous ears;
therefore, we must so often etc.]. For time and again we have said
that to the preaching of the Law there should be added the Gospel
concerning Christ, because of whom good works are pleasing, but they
everywhere teach [without shame] that, Christ being excluded,
justification is merited by the works of the Law. When this passage
is produced unmutilated, it will show that faith is required. Christ
rebukes the Pharisees who think that they are cleansed before God i.e.
, that they are justified by frequent ablutions [by all sorts of
_baptismata carnis_, that is, by all sorts of baths, washings, and
cleansings of the body, of vessels, of garments]. Just as some Pope
or other says of the water sprinkled with salt that it sanctifies and
cleanses the people; and the gloss says that it cleanses from venial
sins. Such also were the opinions of the Pharisees which Christ
reproved, and to this feigned cleansing He opposes a double cleanness,
the one internal, the other external. He bids them be cleansed
inwardly [(which occurs only through faith)], and adds concerning the
outward cleanness: Give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold,
all things are clean unto you. The adversaries do not apply aright
the universal particle all things; for Christ adds this conclusion to
both members: "All things will be clean unto you, if you will be
clean within, and will outwardly give alms." For He indicates that
outward cleanness is to be referred to works commanded by God, and
not to human traditions, such as the ablutions were at that time, and
the daily sprinkling of water, the vesture of monks, the distinctions
of food, and similar acts of ostentation are now. But the
adversaries distort the meaning by sophistically transferring the
universal particle to only one part: "All things will be clean to
those having given alms." [As if any one would infer: Andrew is
present; therefore all the apostles are present. Wherefore in the
antecedent both members ought to be joined: Believe and give alms.
For to this the entire mission, the entire office of Christ points;
to this end He is come that we should believe in Him. Now, if both
parts are combined, believing and giving alms, it follows rightly
that all things are clean: the heart by faith, the external
conversation by good works. Thus we must combine the entire sermon,
and not invert the parts, and interpret the text to mean that the
heart is cleansed from sin by alms. Moreover, there are some who
think that these words were spoken by Christ against the Pharisees
ironically, as if He meant to say: Aye, my dear lords, rob and steal,
and then go and give alms, and you will be promptly cleansed, so that
Christ would in a somewhat sarcastic and mocking way puncture their
pharisaical hypocrisy. For, although they abounded in unbelief,
avarice, and every evil work, they still observed their purifications,
gave alms, and believed that they were quite pure, lovely saints.
This interpretation is not contrary to the text.] Yet Peter says,
Acts 15, 9, that hearts are purified by faith. And when this entire
passage is examined, it presents a meaning harmonizing with the rest
of Scripture, that, if the hearts are cleansed and then outwardly
alms are added, i.e., all the works of love, they are thus entirely
clean i.e. not only within, but also without. And why is not the
entire discourse added to it? There are many parts of the reproof,
some of which give commandment concerning faith and others concerning
works. Nor is it the part of a candid reader to pick out the
commands concerning works, while the passages concerning faith are
omitted.
Lastly, readers are to be admonished of this, namely, that the
adversaries give the worst advice to godly consciences when they
teach that by works the remission of sins is merited, because
conscience, in acquiring remission through works, cannot be confident
that the work will satisfy God. Accordingly, it is always tormented,
and continually devises other works and other acts of worship until
it altogether despairs. This course is described by Paul, Rom. 4, 6,
where he proves that the promise of righteousness is not obtained
because of our works, because we could never affirm that we had a
reconciled God. For the Law always accuses. Thus the promise would
be in vain and uncertain. He accordingly concludes that this promise
of the remission of sins and of righteousness is received by faith,
not on account of works. This is the true, simple, and genuine
meaning of Paul, in which the greatest consolation is offered godly
consciences, and the glory of Christ is shown forth, who certainly
was given to us for this purpose, namely, that through Him we might
have grace, righteousness, and peace.
Thus far we have reviewed the principal passages which the
adversaries cite against us, in order to show that faith does not
justify, and that we merit, by our works, remission of sins and grace.
But we hope that we have shown clearly enough to godly consciences
that these passages are not opposed to our doctrine; that the
adversaries wickedly distort the Scriptures to their opinions; that
the most of the passages which they cite have been garbled; that,
while omitting the clearest passages concerning faith, they only
select from the Scriptures passages concerning works, and even these
they distort; that everywhere they add certain human opinions to that
which the words of Scripture say; that they teach the Law in such a
manner as to suppress the Gospel concerning Christ. For the entire
doctrine of the adversaries is, in part, derived from human reason,
and is, in part, a doctrine of the Law, not of the Gospel. For they
teach two modes of justification, of which the one has been derived
from reason and the other from the Law, not from the Gospel, or the
promise concerning Christ.
The former mode of justification with them is, that they teach that
by good works men merit grace both _de congruo and de condigno_.
This mode is a doctrine of reason, because reason, not seeing the
uncleanness of the heart, thinks that it pleases God if it perform
good works, and for this reason other works and other acts of worship
are constantly devised, by men in great peril, against the terrors of
conscience. The heathen and the Israelites slew human victims, and
undertook many other most painful works in order to appease God's
wrath. Afterwards, orders of monks were devised, and these vied with
each other in the severity of their observances against the terrors
of conscience and God's wrath. And this mode of justification,
because it is according to reason, and is altogether occupied with
outward works, can be understood, and to a certain extent be rendered.
And to this the canonists have distorted the misunderstood Church
ordinances, which were enacted by the Fathers for a far different
purpose, namely, not that by these works we should seek after
righteousness, but that, for the sake of mutual tranquillity among
men, there might be a certain order in the Church. In this manner
they also distorted the Sacraments and most especially the Mass,
through which they seek _ex opere operato_ righteousness, grace, and
salvation.
Part 9
Another mode of justification is handed down by the scholastic
theologians when they teach that we are righteous through a habit
infused by God, which is love, and that, aided by this habit, we
observe the Law of God outwardly and inwardly and that this
fulfilling of the Law is worthy of grace and of eternal life. This
doctrine is plainly the doctrine of the Law. For that is true which
the Law says: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, etc., Deut. 6, 5.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor Lev. 19, 18. Love is, therefore, the
fulfilling of the Law.
But it is easy for a Christian to judge concerning both modes,
because both modes exclude Christ, and are therefore to be rejected.
In the former, which teaches that our works are a propitiation for
sin, the impiety is manifest. The latter mode contains much that is
injurious. It does not teach that, when we are born again, we avail
ourselves of Christ. It does not teach that justification is the
remission of sins. It does not teach that we attain the remission of
sins before we love but falsely represents that we rouse in ourselves
the act of love, through which we merit remission of sins. Nor does
it teach that by faith in Christ we overcome the terrors of sin and
death. It falsely represents that, by their own fulfilling of the
Law, without Christ as Propitiator, men come to God. Finally, it
represents that this very fulfilling of the Law, without Christ as
Propitiator, is righteousness worthy of grace and eternal life, while
nevertheless scarcely a weak and feeble fulfilling of the Law occurs
even in saints.
But if any one will only reflect upon it that the Gospel has not been
given in vain to the world, and that Christ has not been promised,
set forth, has not been born, has not suffered, has not risen again
in vain, he will most readily understand that we are justified not
from reason or from the Law. In regard to justification, we
therefore are compelled to dissent from the adversaries. For the
Gospel shows another mode; the Gospel compels us to avail ourselves
of Christ in justification, it teaches that through Him we have
access to God by faith; it teaches that we ought to set Him as
Mediator and Propitiator against God's wrath; it teaches that by
faith in Christ the remission of sins and reconciliation are received,
and the terrors of sin and of death overcome. Thus Paul also says
that righteousness is not of the Law, but of the promise, in which
the Father has promised that He wishes to forgive, that for Christ's
sake He wishes to be reconciled. This promise, however, is received
by faith alone, as Paul testifies, Rom. 4,13. This faith alone
receives remission of sins, justifies, and regenerates. Then love
and other good fruits follow. Thus, therefore, we teach that man is
justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the
preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ's
sake it has a reconciled God. This faith is counted for
righteousness before God, Rom. 4, 3. 5. And when in this manner the
heart is cheered and quickened by faith, it receives the Holy Ghost,
who renews us, so that we are able to observe the Law; so that we are
able to love God and the Word of God, and to be submissive to God in
afflictions, so that we are able to be chaste, to love our neighbor,
etc. Even though these works are as yet far distant from the
perfection of the Law, yet they please on account of faith, by which
we are accounted righteous, because we believe that for Christ's sake
we have a reconciled God. These things are plain and in harmony with
the Gospel, and can be understood by persons of sound mind. And from
this foundation it can easily be decided why we ascribe justification
to faith, and not to love; although love follows faith, because love
is the fulfilling of the Law. But Paul teaches that we are justified
not from the Law, but from the promise which is received only by
faith. For we neither come to God without Christ as Mediator, nor
receive remission of sins for the sake of our love, but for the sake
of Christ. Likewise we are not able to love God while He is angry,
and the Law always accuses us, always manifests to us an angry God.
Therefore, by faith we must first apprehend the promise that for
Christ's sake the Father is reconciled and forgives. Afterwards we
begin to observe the Law. Our eyes are to be cast far away from
human reason, far away from Moses upon Christ, and we are to believe
that Christ is given us, in order that for His sake we may be
accounted righteous. In the flesh we never satisfy the Law. Thus,
therefore, we are accounted righteous, not on account of the Law but
on account of Christ because His merits are granted us, if we believe
on Him. If any one, therefore, has considered these foundations,
that we are not justified by the Law because human nature cannot
observe the Law of God and cannot love God, but that we are justified
from the promise, in which, for Christ's sake, reconciliation,
righteousness, and eternal life have been promised, he will easily
understand that justification must necessarily be ascribed to faith,
if he only will reflect upon the fact that it is not in vain that
Christ has been promised and set forth, that He has been born and has
suffered and been raised again; if he will reflect upon the fact that
the promise of grace in Christ is not in vain, that it was made
immediately from the beginning of the world apart from and beyond the
Law; if he will reflect upon the fact that the promise should be
received by faith, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10 sq.: He that believeth
not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the record
that God gave of His Son. And this is the record that God hath given
to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the
Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
And Christ says John 8, 36: If the Son, therefore, shall make you
free, ye shall be free indeed. And Paul, Rom. 5, 2: By whom also we
have access to God; and he adds: by faith. By faith in Christ,
therefore, the promise of remission of sins and of righteousness is
received. Neither are we justified before God by reason or by the
Law.
These things are so plain and so manifest that we wonder that the
madness of the adversaries is so great as to call them into doubt.
The proof is manifest that, since we are justified before God not
from the Law but from the promise, it is necessary to ascribe
justification to faith. What can be opposed to this proof, unless
some one wish to abolish the entire Gospel and the entire Christ?
The glory of Christ becomes more brilliant when we teach that we
avail ourselves of Him as Mediator and Propitiator. Godly
consciences see that in this doctrine the most abundant consolation
is offered to them, namely, that they ought to believe and most
firmly assert that they have a reconciled Father for Christ's sake,
and not for the sake of our righteousness, and that, nevertheless,
Christ aids us, so that we are able to observe also the Law. Of such
great blessings as these the adversaries deprive the Church when they
condemn and endeavor to efface, the doctrine concerning the
righteousness of faith. Therefore let all well-disposed minds beware
of consenting to the godless counsels of the adversaries. In the
doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is
made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God,
as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love,
or to love an angry God. In regard to these things, consciences are
left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a
reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe
the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled
God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversaries
acknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much
more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of
God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with
troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When,
therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified?
When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What
else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? And let
any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning
this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand
what they say they only echo, just like the walls of a house, the
little word "love," without understanding it. So confused and
obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ
to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or
to despair. But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds,
and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences.
For as the adversaries quibble that also many wicked men and devils
believe, we have frequently already said that we speak of faith in
Christ, i.e., of faith in the remission of sins, of faith which truly
and heartily assents to the promise of grace. This is not brought
about without a great struggle in human hearts. And men of sound
mind can easily judge that the faith which believes that we are cared
for by God, and that we are forgiven and heard by Him, is a matter
above nature. For of its own accord the human mind makes no such
decision concerning God. Therefore this faith of which we speak is
neither in the wicked nor in devils.
Furthermore, if any sophist cavils that righteousness is in the will,
and therefore it cannot be ascribed to faith, which is in the
intellect, the reply is easy, because in the schools even such
persons acknowledge that the will commands the intellect to assent to
the Word of God. We say also quite clearly: Just as the terrors of
sin and death are not only thoughts of the intellect, but also
horrible movements of the will fleeing God's judgment, so faith is
not only knowledge in the intellect, but also confidence in the will,
i.e., it is to wish and to receive that which is offered in the
promise, namely, reconciliation and remission of sins. Scripture
thus uses the term "faith," as the following sentence of Paul
testifies, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with
God. Moreover, in this passage, to justify signifies, according to
forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but
on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which
righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. Therefore,
since in this passage our righteousness is the imputation of the
righteousness of another, we must here speak concerning righteousness
otherwise than when in philosophy or in a civil court we seek after
the righteousness of one's own work which certainly is in the will.
Paul accordingly says, 1 Cor. 1, 30: Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness, and
Sanctification, and Redemption. And 2 Cor. 5, 21: He hath mode Him
to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him. But because the righteousness of Christ
is given us by faith, faith is for this reason righteousness in us
imputatively, i.e., it is that by which we are made acceptable to God
on account of the imputation and ordinance of God, as Paul says, Rom.
4, 3. 5: Faith is reckoned for righteousness. Although on account of
certain captious persons we must say technically: Faith is truly
righteousness, because it is obedience to the Gospel. For it is
evident that obedience to the command of a superior is truly a
species of distributive justice. And this obedience to the Gospel is
reckoned for righteousness, so that, only on account of this, because
by this we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, good works, or obedience
to the Law, are pleasing. For we do not satisfy the Law, but for
Christ's sake this is forgiven us, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
This faith gives God the honor, gives God that which is His own, in
this, that, by receiving the promises, it obeys Him. Just as Paul
also says, Rom. 4, 20: He staggered not at the promise of God through
unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. Thus the
worship and divine service of the Gos
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/6744