Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St. , Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USAPhone: (260) 452-3149 Fax: (260) 452-2126________________________________________________________________

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)

Table of Contents

Philip Melanchthon's Introduction to the ApologyPart One: On Articles I-II of the AugustanaPart Two: On Articles III-IV of the AugustanaPart Three: What is Justifying Faith?Part Four: That Faith in Christ JustifiesPart Five: That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in ChristPart Six: On Article III: Love and the Fulfilling of the LawPart Seven: Reply to the Arguments of the AdversariesPart 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 AugustanaPart Twelve: Article Nine of the AugustanaPart Thirteen: Article Ten of the AugustanaPart Fourteen: Article Eleven of the AugustanaPart Fifteen: Article Twelve of the AugustanaPart Sixteen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 1)Part Seventeen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 2)Part Eighteen: Article Seven of the AugustanaPart Nineteen: Article Fourteen of the AugustanaPart Twenty: Article Fifteen of the AugustanaPart Twenty-One: Article Sixteen of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Two: Article Seventeen of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Three: Article Eighteen of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Four: Article Nineteen of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Five: Article Twenty of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Six: Article Twenty-One of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Seven: Article Twenty-Two of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Eight: Article Twenty-Three of the AugustanaPart Twenty-Nine: Article Twenty-Four of the AugustanaPart Thirty: A Definition of the term "Sacrifice"Part Thirty-One: What the Fathers Thought About SacraficePart Thirty-Two: Of the Use of the Sacrament and SacrificePart Thirty-Three: Of the Term "Mass"Part Thirty-Four:Of the Mass for the DeadPart Thirty-Five: Of Monastic VowsPart Thirty-Six: Of Ecclesiatical PowerPart Thirty-Seven: End

INTRODUCTION

THE APOLOGY OF THE CONFESSION. 

Philip Melanchthon Presents His Greeting to the Reader. Wherefore webelieve that troubles and dangers for the glory of Christ and thegood of the Church should be endured, and we are confident that thisour fidelity to duty is approved of God, and we hope that thejudgment of posterity concerning us will be more just. 

For it is undeniable that many topics of Christian doctrine whoseexistence in the Church is of the greatest moment have been broughtto view by our theologians and explained; in reference to which weare not disposed here to recount under what sort of opinions, and howdangerous, they formerly lay covered in the writings of the monks, canonists, and sophistical theologians. [This may have to be donelater. ]

We have the public testimonials of many good men, who give God thanksfor this greatest blessing, namely, that concerning many necessarytopics it has taught better things than are read everywhere in thebooks of our adversaries. 

We shall commend our cause, therefore, to Christ, who some time willjudge these controversies, and we beseech Him to look upon theafflicted and scattered churches, and to bring them back to godly andperpetual concord. [Therefore, if the known and clear truth istrodden under foot, we will resign this cause to God and Christ inheaven, who is the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows and ofall the forsaken, who (as we certainly know) will judge and passsentence upon this cause aright. Lord Jesus Christ, it is Thy holyGospel, it is Thy cause; look Thou upon the many troubled hearts andconsciences, and maintain and strengthen in Thy truth Thy churchesand little flocks, who suffer anxiety and distress from the devil. Confound all hypocrisy and lies, and grant peace and unity, so thatThy glory may advance, and Thy kingdom, strong against all the gatesof hell, may continually grow and increase. ]

Part 1

Article I: _Of God. _

The First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in whichwe declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence, undivided, etc. , and yet, that there are three distinct persons, ofthe same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This article we have always taught and defended, and we believe thatit has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that cannot beoverthrown. And we constantly affirm that those thinking otherwiseare outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolaters, and insultGod. 

Article II (I): _Of Original Sin. _

The Second Article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but insuch a way that they, nevertheless, censure the definition oforiginal sin, which we incidentally gave. Here, immediately at thevery threshold, His Imperial Majesty will discover that the writersof the _Confutation_ were deficient not only in judgment, but also incandor. For whereas we, with a simple mind, desired, in passing, torecount those things which original sin embraces, these men, byframing an invidious interpretation, artfully distort a propositionthat has in it nothing which of itself is wrong. Thus they say: "Tobe 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 theschools, not in the council of the Emperor. But although thissophistry can be very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good menmay understand that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd, we ask first of all that the German Confession be examined. Thiswill free us from the suspicion of novelty. For there it is written:_Weiter wird gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, sonatuerlich geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen, das ist, dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste undNeigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gottvon Natur haben koennen. _ [It is further taught that since the Fallof 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 evildesire and inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God. ] This passage testifies that we deny to thosepropagated according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also thepower or gifts of producing fear and trust in God. For we say thatthose thus born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear andtrust in God. What is there here with which fault can be found? Togood men, we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselvessufficiently. For in this sense the Latin description denies tonature [even to innocent infants] the power, i. E. , it denies thegifts and energy by which to produce fear and trust in God, and, inadults [over and above this innate evil disposition of the heart, also] the acts, so that, when we mention concupiscence, we understandnot only the acts or fruits, but the constant inclination of thenature [the evil inclination within, which does not cease as long aswe are not born anew through the Spirit and faith]. 

But hereafter we will show more fully that our description agreeswith the usual and ancient definition. For we must first show ourdesign in preferring to employ these words in this place. In theirschools the adversaries confess that "the material, " as they call it, "of original sin is concupiscence. " Wherefore, in framing thedefinition, this should not have been passed by, especially at thistime, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a mannerunbecoming teachers of religion [are speaking concerning this innate, wicked desire more after the manner of heathen from philosophy thanaccording to God's Word, or Holy Scripture]. 

For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruptionin the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality[not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, orburden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guiltof another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of theirown. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death onaccount of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-womanare slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, butbecause of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, theyare born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not aninnate evil but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but weare not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace]. To show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we mademention of "concupiscence, " and, with the best intention, have termedand explained it as "diseases, " that "the nature of men is borncorrupt and full of faults" [not a part of man, but the entire personwith its entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease]. 

Nor, indeed, have we only made use of the term concupiscence, but wehave also said that "the fear of God and faith are wanting. " This wehave added with the following design: The scholastic teachers also, not sufficiently understanding the definition of original sin, whichthey have received from the Fathers, extenuate the sin of origin. They contend concerning the fomes [or evil inclination] that it is aquality of [blemish in the] body, and, with their usual folly, askwhether this quality be derived from the contagion of the apple orfrom the breath of the serpent, and whether it be increased byremedies. With such questions they have suppressed the main point. Therefore, when they speak of the sin of origin, they do not mentionthe 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 Hejudges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust inpresent things [money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, whichare in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholasticsdo not notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpairedstrength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God'scommandments according to the substance of the acts; nor do they seethat they are saying things that are contradictory to one another. For what else is the being able in one's own strength to love Godabove all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to haveoriginal righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirelypure and holy]? But if human nature have such strength as to be ableof itself to love God above all things, as the scholasticsconfidently affirm, what will original sin be? For what will therebe need of the grace of Christ if we can be justified by our ownrighteousness [powers]? For what will there be need of the HolyGhost if human strength can by itself love God above all things, andfulfil God's commandments? Who does not see what preposterousthoughts our adversaries entertain? The lighter diseases in thenature of man they acknowledge, the more severe they do notacknowledge; and yet of these, Scripture everywhere admonishes us, and the prophets constantly complain [as the 13th Psalm, and someother psalms say Ps. 14, 1-3; 5, 9; 140, 3; 36, 1], namely, of carnalsecurity, of the contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and ofsimilar faults born with us. [For Scripture clearly says that allthese things are not blown at us, but born with us. ] But after thescholastics mingled with Christian doctrine philosophy concerning theperfection of nature [light of reason], and ascribed to the free willand the acts springing therefrom more than was sufficient, and taughtthat men are justified before God by philosophic or civilrighteousness (which we also confess to be subject to reason, and ina measure, within our power), they could not see the inneruncleanness of the nature of men. For this cannot be judged exceptfrom 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, wemade mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's naturalstrength the fear of God and trust in Him. For we wished to indicatethat original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance ofGod, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God andtrust in Him, inability to love God. These are the chief faults ofhuman nature, conflicting especially with the first table of theDecalog. 

Neither have we said anything new. The ancient definition understoodaright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: "Original sinis the absence of original righteousness" [a lack of the first purityand righteousness in Paradise]. But what is righteousness? Here thescholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explainwhat 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 toembrace not only an even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfecthealth and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of thebody, as they contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certainknowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly therectitude and power to yield these affections [but the greatestfeature in that noble first creature was a bright light in the heartto know God and His work, etc. ]. And Scripture testifies to this, when it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fashioned in the image andlikeness of God. What else is this than that there were embodied inman such wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in whichGod was reflected, i. E. , to man there were given the gifts of theknowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like?For thus Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, thelatter of whom not only says many things to this effect, butespecially 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 tothe Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians, 3, 10, that the image of God isthe knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth. Nor does Longobardfear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to Godwhich God implanted in man. We recount the opinions of the ancients, which in no way interfere with Augustine's interpretation of theimage. 

Therefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lackof righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man'slower powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and itsmeanest and lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God, confidence in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the powerto produce these affections [the light in the heart which creates alove and desire for these matters]. For even the theologiansthemselves teach in their schools that these are not produced withoutcertain gifts and the aid of grace. In order that the matter may beunderstood, we term these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fearand confidence in God. From these facts it appears that the ancientdefinition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fearand confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also thegifts and power to produce these acts [that we have no good hearttoward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to door achieve any perfectly good work]. 

Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings ofAugustine, 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 naturecannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnalthings. God's judgment it either contemns when at ease, or hates, when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defectand the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed isconcupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, butalso, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nordo those persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the sametime 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 oforiginal sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able tobelieve God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise:the having concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God'sWord, i. E. , seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnalwisdom and righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as godthings. Nor only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but alsothe more recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser onesamong them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly thesenamely, the defects which I have recounted and concupiscence. ForThomas says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of originalrighteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the partsof 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 iswant of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these repliesthe other is included. The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he saysthat original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in theflesh. For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring withus ignorance of God unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God. For when he mentions ignorance, he includes these. And theseopinions [even of the most recent teachers] also agree with Scripture. For Paul sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divinelight], as 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things ofthe Spirit of God. In another place, Rom. 7, 5, he calls itconcupiscence working in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. We could cite more passages relating to both parts, but in regard toa manifest fact there is no need of testimonies. And the intelligentreader will readily be able to decide that to be without the fear ofGod and without faith are more than actual guilt. For they areabiding defects in our unrenewed nature. 

In reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differingeither from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse fromcorruptions and restore to light most important declarations ofScripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by thesophistical controversies of modern theologians. For it is manifestfrom the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed whatthe Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of originalrighteousness]. But the knowledge of original sin is necessary. Forthe magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one canheartily long and have a desire for Christ for the inexpressiblygreat treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers], unless our diseases be recognized. [As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark2, 17: They that are whole need not a physician. ] The entirerighteousness 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 indisgrace with God]. For this reason the prophet Jeremiah, 31, 19, says: After that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh. LikewisePs. 116, 11: I said in my haste, All men are liars, i. E. , notthinking aright concerning God. 

Here our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrotethat, "Original sin remains after Baptism. " They add that thisarticle was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty willfind on this point a manifest slander. For our adversaries know inwhat sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remainsafter Baptism. He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removesthe guilt of original sin, although the material, as they call it, ofthe sin, i. E. , concupiscence, remains. He also added in reference tothe material that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins tomortify the concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, anew sense and spirit] in man. In the same manner, Augustine alsospeaks who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a mannerthat it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here heconfesses openly that sin exists, i. E. , that it remains although itis not imputed. And this judgment was so agreeable to those whosucceeded him that it was recited also in the decrees. Also againstJulian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has beenannulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in theSacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, becauseit produces desires against which believers contend. Our adversariesknow that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannotreject the matter, they nevertheless pervert his words, in order bythis artifice to crush an innocent man. 

But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [aburden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject todeath and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin. It hasbeen said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. If there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let themquarrel with Augustine. Besides Paul says, Rom. 7, 7. 23: I had notknown lust (concupiscence), except the Law had said, Thou shalt notcovet. Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring againstthe law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sinwhich is in my members. These testimonies can be overthrown by nosophistry. [All devils, all men cannot overthrow them. ] For theyclearly call concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputedto those who are in Christ although by nature it is a matter worthyof death where it is not forgiven. Thus, beyond all controversy, theFathers believe. For Augustine, in a long discussion refutes theopinion of those who thought that concupiscence in man is not a faultbut an adiaphoron, as color of the body or ill health is said to bean adiaphoron [as to have a black or a white body is neither good norevil]. 

But if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evilinclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripturebut simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradictthem. For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination anddesire be there] who ever dared to say that these matters, eventhough 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 beprovoked because God does not at once deliver one from afflictions, to murmur because the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, tobe urged on by wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc. ? Andyet godly men acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in thePsalms and the prophets. [For all tried, Christian hearts know, alas!that these evils are wrapped up in man's skin, namely to esteemmoney, goods, and all other matters more highly than God, and tospend our lives in security; again, that after the manner of ourcarnal security we always imagine that God's wrath against sin is notas serious and great as it verily is. Again, that we murmur againstthe doing and will of God, when He does not succor us speedily in ourtribulations, and arranges our affairs to please us. Again, weexperience every day that it hurts us to see wicked people in goodfortune in this world, as David and all the saints have complained. Over and above this, all men feel that their hearts are easilyinflamed, now with ambition, now with anger and wrath, now withlewdness. ] But in the schools they transferred hither from philosophynotions entirely different, that, because of passions, we are neithergood nor evil, we are neither deserving of praise nor blame. Likewise, that nothing is sin, unless it be voluntary [inner desiresand thoughts are not sins, if I do not altogether consent thereto]. These notions were expressed among philosophers with respect to civilrighteousness, and not with respect to God's judgment. [For there itis true, as the jurists say, L. Cogitationis, thoughts are exemptfrom custom and punishment. But God searches the hearts; in God'scourt and judgment it is different. ] With no greater prudence theyadd also other notions, such as, that [God's creature and] nature isnot [cannot in itself be] evil. In its proper place we do notcensure this; but it is not right to twist it into an extenuation oforiginal sin. And, nevertheless, these notions are read in the worksof scholastics, who inappropriately mingle philosophy or civildoctrine concerning ethics with the Gospel. Nor were these mattersonly disputed in the schools, but, as is usually the case, werecarried from the schools to the people. And these persuasions[godless, erroneous, dangerous, harmful teachings] prevailed, andnourished confidence in human strength, and suppressed the knowledgeof Christ's grace. Therefore, Luther wishing to declare themagnitude of original sin and of human infirmity [what a grievousmortal guilt original sin is in the sight of God], taught that theseremnants of original sin [after Baptism] are not, by their own nature, adiaphora in man, but that, for their non-imputation, they need thegrace of Christ and, likewise for their mortification, the Holy Ghost. 

Although the scholastics extenuate both sin and punishment when theyteach that man by his own strength, can fulfil the commandments ofGod; in Genesis the punishment, imposed on account of original sin, is described otherwise. For there human nature is subjected not onlyto death and other bodily evils, but also to the kingdom of the devil. For there, Gen. 3, 16, this fearful sentence is proclaimed: I willput enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and herseed. The defects and the concupiscence are punishments and sins. Death and other bodily evils and the dominion of the devil, areproperly punishments. For human nature has been delivered intoslavery, and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates it withwicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind. Butjust as the devil cannot be conquered except by the aid of Christ, soby our own strength we cannot free ourselves from this slavery. Eventhe history of the world shows how great is the power of the devil'skingdom. The world is full of blasphemies against God and of wickedopinions, and the devil keeps entangled in these bands those who arewise and righteous [many hypocrites who appear holy] in the sight ofthe world. In other persons grosser vices manifest themselves. Butsince Christ was given to us to remove both these sins and thesepunishments, and to destroy the kingdom of the devil, sin and death, it will not be possible to recognize the benefits of Christ unless weunderstand our evils. For this reason our preachers have diligentlytaught concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing that isnew but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holyFathers. 

We think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty concerning thepuerile and trivial sophistry with which the adversaries haveperverted our article. For we know that we believe aright and inharmony with the Church catholic of Christ. But if the adversarieswill renew this controversy, there will be no want among us of thosewho will reply and defend the truth. For in this case ouradversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what they say. They often speak what is contradictory, and neither explain correctlyand logically that which is essential to [i. E. , that which is or isnot properly of the essence of] original sin, nor what they calldefects. But we have been unwilling at this place to examine theircontests with any very great subtlety. We have thought it worthwhile only to recite, in customary and well-known words, the beliefof the holy Fathers, which we also follow. 

PART 2

Article III: _Of Christ. _

The Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess thatthere are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed bythe Word into the unity of His person; and that the same Christsuffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that He wasraised 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, notbecause of their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, throughfaith in Christ. [They reject quite stubbornly both these statements. ] For they condemn us both for denying that men obtain remission ofsins because of their own merits, and for affirming that, throughfaith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ arejustified. But since in this controversy the chief topic ofChristian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illuminesand amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service forthe clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, andalone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledgeof Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and bringsnecessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we askHis Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to mattersof such importance. For since the adversaries understand neitherwhat the remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor whatrighteousness is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure theglory and benefits of Christ and rob devout consciences of theconsolations offered in Christ. But that we may strengthen theposition of our Confession, and also remove the charges which theadversaries advance against us, certain things are to be premised inthe 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 [inthe Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, forHis sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, orwhen, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since Hehas appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and lifeeternal. Moreover, in this discussion, by Law we designate the TenCommandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of theceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present. 

Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because humanreason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has thesame judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agreeswith the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law theyseek the remission of sins and justification. Now, the Decalogrequires not only outward civil works, which reason can in some wayproduce, 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 Godin death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience toGod, 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 arighteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besidesthat 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 thewrath 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 bydoing what is in them, i. E. , if reason, grieving over sin, elicit anact 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 broughtforth and multiplied in the Church many services, monastic vows, abuses of the mass; and, with this opinion the one has, in the courseof time, devised this act of worship and observances, the other that. And in order that they might nourish and increase confidence in suchworks, they have affirmed that God necessarily gives grace to onethus working, by the necessity not of constraint, but of immutability[not that He is constrained, but that this is the order which Godwill not transgress or alter]. 

In this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which itwould be tedious to enumerate. Let the discreet reader think only ofthis: If this be Christian righteousness, what difference is therebetween philosophy and the doctrine of Christ? If we merit theremission of sins by these elicit acts [that spring from our mind], of what benefit is Christ? If we can be justified by reason and theworks of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration[as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff. ]? And from these opinions thematter has now come to such a pass that many ridicule us because weteach that an other than the philosophic righteousness must be soughtafter. [Alas! it has come to this, that even great theologians atLouvain, Paris, etc. , have known nothing of any other godliness orrighteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teachesotherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach. And althoughwe ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridiculeit, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself. ] Wehave heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, insteadof a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have hearda great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, andpreached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolishway to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those thingsare true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of theadversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and afine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals solearnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. Wesee books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared withthe sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had comefor the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we mightmerit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive thisgratuitously, because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receivethe doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we meritthe remission of sins and justification, there will be no differencebetween philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christianrighteousness. 

Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require aknowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him thatit is His merit that a habit is given us, or, as they say, _primagratia_, "first grace, " which they understand as a habit, incliningus the more readily to love God; yet what they ascribe to this habitis of little importance [is a feeble, paltry, small, poor operation, that would be ascribed to Christ], because they imagine that the actsof the will are of the same kind before and after this habit. Theyimagine that the will can love God; but nevertheless this habitstimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully. And they bid usfirst merit this habit by preceding merits; then they bid us merit bythe 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 asa Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receiveremission of sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their ownfulfilment of the Law they merit the remission of sins, and that bytheir own fulfilment of the Law they are accounted righteous beforeGod; while, nevertheless, the Law is never satisfied, since reasondoes nothing except certain civil works, and, in the mean timeneither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly believes that God caresfor it. And although they speak of this habit, yet, without therighteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in man, norcan it be understood what the love of God is. 

Their feigning a distinction between _meritum congrui_ and _meritumcondigni_ [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice inorder not to appear openly to Pelagianize, For, if God necessarilygives grace for the _meritum congrui_ [due merit], it is no longer_meritum congrui_, but _meritum condigni_ [a true duty and completemerit]. But they do not know what they are saying. After this habitof love [is there], they imagine that man can acquire _merit decondigno_. And yet they bid us doubt whether there be a habitpresent. How, therefore, do they know whether they acquire merit _decongruo_ or _de condigno_ [in full, or half]? But this whole matterwas fabricated by idle men [But, good God! these are mere inane ideasand dreams of idle, wretched, inexperienced men who do not muchreduce the Bible to practise], who did not know how the remission ofsins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors ofconscience, trust in works is driven out of us. Secure hypocritesalways judge that they acquire _merit de condigno_, whether the habitbe present or be not present, because men naturally trust in theirown righteousness, but terrified consciences waver and hesitate, andthen seek and accumulate other works in order to find rest. Suchconsciences never think that they acquire merit _de condigno_, andthey rush into despair unless they hear, in addition to the doctrineof the Law, the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission of sinsand the righteousness of faith. [Thus some stories are told thatwhen the Barefooted monks had in vain praised their order and goodworks to some good consciences in the hour of death, they at last hadto be silent concerning their order and St. Franciscus, and to say:"Dear man, Christ has died for you. " This revived and refreshed introuble, 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 uponthe veiled face of Moses, and, in secure hypocrites who think thatthey satisfy the Law, they excite presumption and empty confidence inworks [they place men on a sand foundation, their own works] andcontempt of the grace of Christ. On the contrary, they drive timidconsciences to despair, which, laboring with doubt, never canexperience what faith is, and how efficacious it is; thus, at lastthey utterly despair. 

Now, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely, that God requires it, and that, because of God's commandment, thehonorable works which the Decalog commands must necessarily beperformed, according to the passage Gal. 3, 24: The Law was ourschoolmaster; likewise 1 Tim. 1, 9: The Law is made for the ungodly. For God wishes those who are carnal [gross sinners] to be restrainedby civil discipline, and to maintain this, He has given laws, letters, doctrine, magistrates, penalties. And this righteousness reason, byits own strength, can, to a certain extent, work, although it isoften overcome by natural weakness, and by the devil impelling it tomanifest crimes. Now, although we cheerfully assign thisrighteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corruptnature has no greater good [in this life and in a worldly nature, nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue], and Aristotlesays aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is morebeautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodilyrewards), 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 Godbecause of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety]. 

False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to loveGod above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fearGod to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing toobey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet whatbelongs 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 commandmentsof God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace intheir hearts]. We have testimonies for this our belief, not onlyfrom the Scriptures, but also from the Fathers. For in opposition tothe Pelagians, Augustine contends at great length that grace is notgiven because of our merits. And in _De Natura et Gratia_ he says:If natural ability, through the free will, suffice both for learningto know how one ought to live and for living aright, then Christ hasdied in vain, then the offense of the Cross is made void. Why may Inot also here cry out? Yea I will cry out, and, with Christian grief, will chide them: Christ has become of no effect unto you whosoeverof 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, andgoing about to establish their own righteousness, have not submittedthemselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end ofthe 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 befree indeed. Therefore by reason we cannot be freed from sins andmerit the remission of sins. And in John 3, 5 it is written: Excepta man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into thekingdom of God. But if it is necessary to be born again of the HolyGhost the righteousness of reason does not justify us before God, anddoes not fulfil the Law, Rom. 3, 23: All have come short of the gloryof God, i. E. , are destitute of the wisdom and righteousness of God, which acknowledges and glorifies God. Likewise Rom. 8, 7. 8: Thecarnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Lawof God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the fleshcannot please God. These testimonies are so manifest that, to usethe words of Augustine which he employed in this case, they do notneed an acute understanding, but only an attentive hearer. If thecarnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh certainly does not loveGod; 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 wedo external civil works. If it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, itpossesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise. Theadversaries consider only the precepts of the Second Table whichcontain civil righteousness that reason understands. Content withthis, they think that they satisfy the Law of God. In the mean timethey do not see the First Table which commands that we love God, thatwe declare as certain that God is angry with sin, that we truly fearGod, that we declare as certain that God hears prayer. But the humanheart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God'sjudgment, 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 concerningthe threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, evenwhen, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they dothem with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is notof faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contemptof God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, orthat he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates worksseemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart. 

Lastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men whoare 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 theheart, truly feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He beshown to have been reconciled. As long as He terrifies us, and seemsto cast us into eternal death, human nature is not able to takecourage, so as to love a wrathful, judging, and punishing God [poor, weak nature must lose heart and courage, and must tremble before suchgreat wrath, which so fearfully terrifies and punishes, and can neverfeel a spark of love before God Himself comforts]. It is easy foridle men to feign such dreams concerning love as, that a personguilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they donot feel what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in agony ofconscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences theemptiness of these philosophical speculations. Paul says, Rom. 4, 15:The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit theremission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifiesconsciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscienceterrified by the Law flees from the judgment of God. Therefore theyerr who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit theremission of sins. It is sufficient for us to have said these thingsconcerning the righteousness of reason or of the Law, which theadversaries teach. For after a while, when we will declare ourbelief concerning the righteousness of faith, the subject itself willcompel us to adduce more testimonies, which also will be of servicein overthrowing the errors of the adversaries which we have thus farreviewed. 

Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Lawof 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 bejustified but the promise of the remission of sins and ofjustification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given forus in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world, and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. Andthis promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not readthus: Through Christ you have grace salvation, etc. , if you merit it], but freely offers the remission of sins and justification, as Paulsays, Rom. 11, 6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace. Andin another place, Rom. 3, 21: The righteousness of God without theLaw is manifested, i. E. , the remission of sins is freely offered. Nor does reconciliation depend upon our merits. Because, if theremission of sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliationwere from the Law, it would be useless. For, as we do not fulfil theLaw, it would also follow that we would never obtain the promise ofreconciliation. Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 4, 14: For if they which areof the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of noneeffect. For if the promise would require the condition of our meritsand the Law, which we never fulfil, it would follow that the promisewould be useless. 

But since justification is obtained through the free promise, itfollows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, wherefore wouldthere be need to promise? [And why should Paul so highly extol andpraise grace?] For since the promise cannot be received except byfaith, the Gospel, which is properly the promise of the remission ofsins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims therighteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach. Noris this the righteousness of the Law. For the Law requires of us ourworks and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ'ssake, 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 onlyconfidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. Thisspecial faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that forChrist's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sakeGod is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins andjustifies us. And because in repentance, i. E. In terrors, itcomforts and encourages hearts it regenerates us, and brings the HolyGhost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law, namely, to loveGod, 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, itdoes not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed asidelike a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the trueknowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, andregenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. And ofthis faith not a syllable exists in the doctrine of our adversaries. Hence we find fault with the adversaries, equally because they teachonly the righteousness of the Law and because they do not teach therighteousness of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness offaith 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 theysay nothing concerning faith, by which Paul so frequently says thatmen are justified, because those who are accounted righteous beforeGod do not live in mortal sin. But that faith which justifies is notmerely a knowledge of history, [not merely this, that I know thestories 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'ssake, the remission of sins and justification are freely offered. [It is the certainty or the certain trust in the heart, when, with mywhole heart, I regard the promises of God as certain and true, through which there are offered me, without my merit, the forgivenessof sins, grace, and all salvation, through Christ the Mediator. ] Andthat 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 ofsins and of justification. [Faith is that my whole heart takes toitself this treasure. It is not my doing, not my presenting orgiving, not my work or preparation, but that a heart comforts itself, and is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that Godmakes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds uponus every treasure of grace in Christ. ]

And the difference between this faith and the righteousness of theLaw can be easily discerned. Faith is the _latreia_ [divine service], which receives the benefits offered by God; the righteousness of theLaw is the _latreia_ [divine service] which offers to God our merits. By faith God wishes to be worshiped in this way, that we receivefrom Him those things which He promises and offers. 

Now, that faith signifies, not only a knowledge of the history, butsuch faith as assents to the promise, Paul plainly testifies when hesays, Rom. 4, 16: Therefore it is of faith, to the end the promisemight be sure. For he judges that the promise cannot be receivedunless by faith. Wherefore he puts them together as things thatbelong to one another, and connects promise and faith. [There Paulfastens and binds together these two, thus: Wherever there is apromise faith is required and conversely, wherever faith is requiredthere must be a promise. ] Although it will be easy to decide whatfaith is if we consider the Creed where this article certainly stands:The forgiveness of sins. Therefore it is not enough to believe thatChrist was born, suffered, was raised again, unless we add also thisarticle, which is the purpose of the history: The forgiveness of sins. To this article the rest must be referred, namely, that forChrist's sake, and not for the sake of our merits, forgiveness ofsins is given us. For what need was there that Christ was given forour sins if for our sins our merits can make satisfaction?

As often, therefore, as we speak of justifying faith, we must keep inmind 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 ourmerits, and signifies that the benefit is offered only through mercy;the merits of Christ are the price, because there must be a certainpropitiation for our sins. Scripture frequently implores mercy, andthe holy Fathers often say that we are saved by mercy. As often, therefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind thatfaith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy. And, again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to beunderstood, namely, the promised mercy. For faith justifies andsaves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but onlybecause 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 thegratuitous remission of sins. But the Fathers knew the promiseconcerning Christ that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price forour sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great amatter [could not pay so great a debt]. Accordingly, they receivedgratuitous mercy and remission of sins by faith, just as the saintsin the New Testament. Here belong those frequent repetitionsconcerning mercy and faith, in the psalms and the prophets, as this, Ps. 130, 3 sq. : If Thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, whoshall stand? Here David confesses his sins and does not recount hismerits. He adds; But there is forgiveness with Thee. Here hecomforts himself by his trust in God's mercy, and he cites thepromise: My soul doth wait and in His Word do I hope, i. E. , becauseThou hast promised the remission of sins, I am sustained by this Thypromise. Therefore the fathers also were justified, not by the Lawbut by the promise and faith. And it is amazing that the adversariesextenuate faith to such a degree, although they see that it iseverywhere praised as an eminent service, as in Ps. 50, 15: Call uponMe in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee. Thus God wishesHimself to be known, thus He wishes Himself to be worshiped, thatfrom Him we receive benefits, and receive them, too, because of Hismercy, and not because of our merits. This is the richestconsolation in all afflictions [physical or spiritual, in life or indeath as all godly persons know]. And such consolations theadversaries abolish when they extenuate and disparage faith, andteach only that by means of works and merits men treat with God [thatwe 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 concerningan idle knowledge of the history, we must declare how faith isobtained [how the heart begins to believe]. Afterward we will showboth that it justifies, and how this ought to be understood, and wewill explain the objections of the adversaries. Christ, in the lastchapter of Luke 24, 47, commands that repentance and remission ofsins should be preached in His name. For the Gospel convicts all menthat they are under sin, that they all are subject to eternal wrathand death, and offers for Christ's sake remission of sin andjustification, which is received by faith. The preaching ofrepentance, which accuses us, terrifies consciences with true andgrave terrors. [For the preaching of repentance, or this declarationof the Gospel: Amend your lives! Repent! When it truly penetratesthe heart, terrifies the conscience, and is no jest, but a greatterror, in which the conscience feels its misery and sin and thewrath of God. ] In these, hearts ought again to receive consolation. This happens if they believe the promise of Christ, that for His sakewe have remission of sins. This faith, encouraging and consoling inthese fears, receives remission of sins, justifies and quickens. Forthis consolation is a new and spiritual life [a new birth and a newlife]. These things are plain and clear, and can be understood bythe pious, and have testimonies of the Church [as is to be seen inthe conversion of Paul and Augustine]. The adversaries nowhere cansay how the Holy Ghost is given. They imagine that the Sacramentsconfer the Holy Ghost _ex opere operato_, without a good emotion inthe recipient, as though, indeed, the gift of the Holy Ghost were anidle matter. 

But since we speak of such faith as is not an idle thought, but ofthat 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 renewour 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 mortalsin [for how can light and darkness coexist?], but as long as it ispresent, produces good fruits as we will say after a while. Forconcerning the conversion of the wicked, or concerning the mode ofregeneration, what can be said that is more simple and more clear?Let them, from so great an array of writers, adduce a singlecommentary upon the Sententiae that speaks of the mode ofregeneration. When they speak of the habit of love, they imaginethat men merit it through works and they do not teach that it isreceived through the Word, precisely as also the Anabaptists teach atthis time. But God cannot be treated with, God cannot be apprehended, except through the Word. Accordingly, justification occurs throughthe Word, just as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power ofGod unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise 10, 17:Faith cometh by hearing. And proof can be derived even from thisthat faith justifies, because, if justification occurs only throughthe Word, and the Word is apprehended only by faith, it follows thatfaith justifies. But there are other and more important reasons. Wehave said these things thus far in order that we might show the modeof 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, inthe first place readers must be admonished of this, that just as itis necessary to maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is itnecessary to defend that faith justifies, [without works]. For howwill Christ be Mediator if in justification we do not use Him asMediator; if we do not hold that for His sake we are accountedrighteous? But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, thatfor His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us. Likewise, just as we ought to maintain that, apart from the Law, the promiseof Christ is necessary, so also is it needful to maintain that faithjustifies. [For the Law does not preach the forgiveness of sin bygrace. ] For the Law cannot be performed unless the Holy Ghost befirst received. It is, therefore, needful to maintain that thepromise of Christ is necessary. But this cannot be received exceptby faith. Therefore, those who deny that faith justifies, teachnothing but the Law, both Christ and the Gospel being set aside. 

But when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand itof the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning ofjustification or preparation for justification, so that not faithitself is that through which we are accepted by God, but the workswhich follow; and they dream, accordingly, that faith is highlypraised, because it is the beginning. For great is the importance ofthe beginning, as they commonly say, _Archae aemioy pantos_, Thebeginning is half of everything; just as if one would say thatgrammar makes the teachers of all arts, because it prepares for otherarts, although in fact it is his own art that renders every one anartist. We do not believe thus concerning faith, but we maintainthis, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ'ssake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God. And because "tobe justified" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or bornagain, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just. ForScripture speaks in both ways. [The term "to be justified" is usedin two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, beingaccounted righteous. ] Accordingly we wish first to show this, thatfaith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i. E. , receives remissionof 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 ofthe Law. Again, Eph. 2, 8: It is the gift of God; not of works, lestany man should boast. Again, Rom. 3, 24: Being justified freely. Ifthe exclusive alone displeases, let them remove from Paul also theexclusives freely, not of works, it is the gift, etc. For these alsoare [very strong] exclusives. It is, however, the opinion of meritthat we exclude. We do not exclude the Word or Sacraments, as theadversaries falsely charge us. For we have said above that faith isconceived from the Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in thehighest degree. Love also and works must follow faith. Wherefore, they are not excluded so as not to follow, but confidence in themerit of love or of works is excluded in justification. And this wewill 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 bejustified, according to Ps. 32, 1: Blessed is he whose transgressionis forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not becauseof love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although lovefollows faith. Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out ofan unrighteous, or that he be regenerated. 

It will thus become easy to declare the minor premise [that we obtainforgiveness of sin by faith, not by love] if we know how theremission of sins occurs. The adversaries with great indifferencedispute whether the remission of sins and the infusion of grace arethe same change [whether they are one change or two]. Being idle men, they did not know what to answer [cannot speak at all on thissubject]. In the remission of sins, the terrors of sin and ofeternal death, in the heart, must be overcome, as Paul testifies, 1Cor. 15, 56 sq. : The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sinis the Law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victorythrough 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 wecomfort ourselves by confidence in the mercy promised for Christ'ssake. Thus, therefore we prove the minor proposition. The wrath ofGod cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, becauseChrist has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake, the Father may become reconciled to us. But Christ is notapprehended as a Mediator except by faith. Therefore, by faith alonewe obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts withconfidence 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 receiveremission of sins when we are comforted with confidence in the mercypromised for Christ's sake. The adversaries regard Christ asMediator and Propitiator for this reason, namely, that He has meritedthe habit of love; they do not urge us to use Him now as Mediator, but, as though Christ were altogether buried, they imagine that wehave access through our own works, and, through these, merit thishabit and afterwards, by this love, come to God. Is not this to buryChrist 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 addsthat we have access by faith. By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake, we receive remission of sins. We cannot set our own love and ourown works over against God's wrath. 

Secondly. It is certain that sins are forgiven for the sake ofChrist, as Propitiator, Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath set forth to be apropitiation. Moreover, Paul adds: through faith. Therefore thisPropitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercypromised 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 withconfidence. For the Apostle bids us come to God, not with confidencein 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 prophetswitness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shallreceive remission of sins. How could this be said more clearly? Wereceive remission of sins, he says, through His name i. E. , for Hissake; therefore, not for the sake of our merits, not for the sake ofour contrition, attrition, love, worship, works. And he adds: Whenwe believe in Him. Therefore he requires faith. For we cannotapprehend the name of Christ except by faith. Besides he cites theagreement of all the prophets. This is truly to cite the authorityof the Church. [For when all the holy prophets bear witness, that iscertainly a glorious, great excellent, powerful decretal andtestimony. ] But of this topic we will speak again after a while, whentreating of "Repentance. "

Fourthly. Remission of sins is something promised for Christ's sake. Therefore it cannot be received except by faith alone. For apromise cannot be received except by faith alone. Rom. 4, 16:Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end thatthe promise might be sure; as though he were to say: "If the matterwere to depend upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain anduseless, because we never could determine when we would havesufficient merit. " And this, experienced consciences can easilyunderstand [and would not, for a thousand worlds, have our salvationdepend upon ourselves]. Accordingly, Paul says, Gal. 3, 22: But theScripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith ofJesus Christ might be given to them that believe. He takes meritaway from us, because he says that all are guilty and concluded undersin; then he adds that the promise, namely, of the remission of sinsand of justification, is given, and adds how the promise can bereceived, namely, by faith. And this reasoning, derived from thenature of a promise, is the chief reasoning [a veritable rock] inPaul, and is often repeated. Nor can anything be devised or imaginedwhereby this argument of Paul can be overthrown. Wherefore let notgood minds suffer themselves to be forced from the conviction that wereceive remission of sins for Christ's sake, only through faith. Inthis 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 faithalone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accountedrighteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faithapprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faithwe are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will addtestimonies which clearly declare that faith is that veryrighteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because itreceives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sakeHe wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because Heknows 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 isreconciled to us, we are justified freely by faith. And thisproposition, 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 isjustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3, 28. Herethe adversaries interpret that this refers to Levitical ceremonies[not to other virtuous works]. But Paul speaks not only of theceremonies, but of the whole Law. For he quotes afterward (7, 7)from the _Decalog_: Thou shalt not covet. And if moral works [thatare not Jewish ceremonies] would merit the remission of sins andjustification, there would also be no need of Christ and the promise, and all that Paul speaks of the promise would be overthrown. Hewould also have been wrong in writing to the Ephesians, 2, 8: Bygrace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it isthe gift of God, not of works. Paul likewise refers to Abraham andDavid, Rom. 4, 1. 6. But they had the command of God concerningcircumcision. Therefore, if any works justified these works mustalso have justified at the time that they had a command. ButAugustine teaches correctly that Paul speaks of the entire Law, as hediscusses at length in his book, Of the Spirit and Letter, where hesays finally: These matters, therefore, having been considered andtreated, according to the ability that the Lord has thought worthy togive us, we infer that man is not justified by the precepts of a goodlife, but by faith in Jesus Christ. 

And lest we may think that the sentence that faith justifies, fellfrom Paul inconsiderately, he fortifies and confirms this by a longdiscussion in the fourth chapter to the Romans, and afterwardsrepeats it in all his epistles. Thus he says, Rom. 4, 4. 5: To himthat worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Butto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth theungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Here he clearlysays that faith itself is imputed for righteousness. Faith, therefore, is that thing which God declares to be righteousness, andhe adds that it is imputed freely, and says that it could not beimputed freely, if it were due on account of works. Wherefore heexcludes also the merit of moral works [not only Jewish ceremonies, but all other good works]. For if justification before God were dueto these, faith would not be imputed for righteousness without works. And afterwards, Rom. 4, 9: For we say that faith was reckoned toAbraham for righteousness. Chapter 5, 1 says: Being justified byfaith, we have peace with God, i. E. , we have consciences that aretranquil and joyful before God. Rom. 10, 10: With the heart manbelieveth unto righteousness. Here he declares that faith is therighteousness of the heart. Gal. 2, 15: We have believed in ChristJesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not bythe works of the Law. Eph. 2, 8. For by grace are ye saved throughfaith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not ofworks, lest any man should boast. 

John 1, 12: To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even tothem that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor ofthe 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 mustthe Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him shouldnot perish. Likewise, v. 17: For God sent not His Son into the worldto 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 whichye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. How could the officeof Christ and justification be declared more clearly? The Law, hesays, did not justify. Therefore Christ was given, that we maybelieve that for His sake we are justified. He plainly deniesjustification to the Law. Hence, for Christ's sake we are accountedrighteous when we believe that God, for His sake, has been reconciledto us. Acts 4, 11. 12: This is the stone which was set at naught ofyou builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither isthere salvation in any other; for there is none other name underheaven given among men whereby we must be saved. But the name ofChrist is apprehended only by faith. [I cannot believe in the nameof Christ in any other way than when I hear His merit preached, andlay 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 whichsalvation is attained. And to call upon the name of Christ is totrust in the name of Christ, as the cause or price because of whichwe are saved. Acts 15, 9: Purifying their hearts by faith. Wherefore that faith of which the Apostles speak is not idleknowledge, but a reality, receiving the Holy Ghost and justifying us[not a mere knowledge of history, but a strong powerful work of theHoly Ghost, which changes hearts]. 

Hab. 2, 4: The just shall live by his faith. Here he says, firstthat men are just by faith by which they believe that God ispropitious and he adds that the same faith quickens, because thisfaith produces in the heart peace and joy and eternal life [whichbegins in the present life]. 

Is. 53, 11: By His knowledge shall He justify many. But what is theknowledge of Christ unless to know the benefits of Christ, thepromises which by the Gospel He has scattered broadcast in the world?And to know these benefits is properly and truly to believe inChrist, to believe that that which God has promised for Christ's sakeHe will certainly fulfil. 

But Scripture is full of such testimonies, since, in some places, itpresents the Law, and in others the promises concerning Christ, andthe remission of sins, and the free acceptance of the sinner forChrist's sake. 

Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. ForAmbrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the worldwas subject to him by the Law for the reason that, according to thecommand of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of theLaw, 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, Heforgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding ofHis own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: "The Law entered that the offensemight abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. "Because after the whole world become subject, He took away the sin ofthe whole world, as he [John] testified, saying, John 1, 29: "Beholdthe Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. " And on thisaccount let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by hisdeeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he wasjustified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is thatwhich frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whosetransgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, " Ps. 32, 1. Theseare the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he deniesjustification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us freethrough the blood of Christ. Let all the Sententiarists, who areadorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap. Forsome are called angelic; others, subtile; and others irrefragable[that is, doctors who cannot err]. When all these have been read andreread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as isthis one passage of Ambrose. 

To the same effect, Augustine writes many things against thePelagians. In f the Spirit and Letter he says: The righteousness ofthe Law, namely, that he who has fulfilled it shall live in it, isset forth for this reason that when any one has recognized hisinfirmity he may attain and work the same and live in it, conciliating the Justifier not by his own strength nor by the letterof the Law itself (which cannot be done), but by faith. Except in ajustified man, there is no right work wherein he who does it may live. But justification is obtained by faith. Here he clearly says thatthe Justifier is conciliated by faith, and that justification isobtained by faith. And a little after: By the Law we fear God; byfaith we hope in God. But to those fearing punishment grace ishidden; and the soul laboring, etc. , under this fear betakes itselfby 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 faiththey receive consolation. He also teaches us to apprehend, by faith, mercy, before we attempt to fulfil the Law. We will shortly citecertain other passages. 

Truly, it is amazing that the adversaries are in no way moved by somany passages of Scripture, which clearly ascribe justification tofaith, and, indeed, deny it to works. Do they think that the same isrepeated so often for no purpose? Do they think that these wordsfell inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost? But they have also devisedsophistry whereby they elude them. They say that these passages ofScripture, (which speak of faith, ) ought to be received as referringto a _fides formata_, i. E. , they do not ascribe justification tofaith except on account of love. Yea, they do not, in any way, ascribe justification to faith, but only to love, because they dreamthat faith can coexist with mortal sin. Whither does this tend, unless that they again abolish the promise and return to the Law? Iffaith receive the remission of sins on account of love, the remissionof sins will always be uncertain, because we never love as much as weought, yea, we do not love unless our hearts are firmly convincedthat the remission of sins has been granted us. Thus the adversaries, while they require in the remission of sins and justificationconfidence in one's own love, altogether abolish the Gospelconcerning the free remission of sins; although at the same time, they neither render this love nor understand it, unless they believethat 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, noruncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. And yet we must notthink on that account that by confidence in this love or on accountof this love we receive the remission of sins and reconciliation justas we do not receive the remission of sins because of other worksthat follow. But the remission of sins is received by faith alone, and, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannotbe received except by faith. But faith, properly so called, is thatwhich assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost inthe heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain]. Of thisfaith Scripture speaks. And because it receives the remission ofsins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham]accounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the worksof the Law, although love necessarily follows. Nor, indeed, is thisfaith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, butit is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, andterrified minds are encouraged and quickened. And because this faithalone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable toGod, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called_gratia gratum faciens_, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than aneffect following, namely, love. 

Thus far, in order that the subject might be made quite clear, wehave shown with sufficient fulness, both from testimonies ofScripture, and arguments derived from Scripture, that by faith alonewe obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faithalone we are justified, i. E. , of unrighteous men made righteous, orregenerated. But how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, canbe easily judged, because in this alone the office of Christ isrecognized, by this alone we receive the benefits of Christ; thisalone brings sure and firm consolation to pious minds. And in theChurch [if there is to be a church, if there is to be a ChristianCreed], it is necessary that there should be the [preaching and]doctrine [by which consciences are not made to rely on a dream or tobuild on a foundation of sand, but] from which the pious may receivethe sure hope of salvation. For the adversaries give men bad advice[therefore the adversaries are truly unfaithful bishops, unfaithfulpreachers and doctors; they have hitherto given evil counsel toconsciences, and still do so by introducing such doctrine] when theybid them doubt whether they obtain remission of sins. For how willsuch persons sustain themselves in death who have heard nothing ofthis faith, and think that they ought to doubt whether they obtainthe remission of sins? Besides it is necessary that in the Church ofChrist the Gospel be retained, i. E. , the promise that for Christ'ssake sins are freely remitted. Those who teach nothing of this faith, concerning which we speak, altogether abolish the Gospel. But thescholastics mention not even a word concerning this faith. Ouradversaries follow them, and reject this faith. Nor do they see that, by rejecting this faith, they abolish the entire promise concerningthe 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 Lawshall be justified, Rom. 2, 13, and many other like things concerningthe Law and works. Before we reply to this, we must first declarewhat 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 theirinward parts, and write it in their hearts. And in Rom. 3, 31 Paulsays: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. And Christ says, Matt. 19, 17: If thou wiltenter into life, keep the commandments. Likewise, 1 Cor. 13, 3: If Ihave not charity, it profiteth me nothing. These and similarsentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be keptby us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have beenjustified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit]. Moreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which givescommandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the_Decalog_. Because, indeed, faith brings the Holy Ghost, andproduces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should producespiritual movements in hearts. And what these movements are, theprophet, Jer. 31, 33, shows, when he says: I will put My Law intotheir inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Therefore, when wehave been justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear andlove God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks andpraise Him and to obey Him in afflictions. We begin also to love ourneighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements[there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart mind, andspirit within]. 

These things cannot occur until we have been justified by faith, and, regenerated, we receive the Holy Ghost: first, because the Law cannotbe kept without [the knowledge of] Christ; and likewise the Lawcannot be kept without the Holy Ghost. But the Holy Ghost isreceived 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 isterribly angry, and is oppressing us with temporal and perpetualcalamities? But the Law always accuses us, always shows that God isangry. [Therefore, what the scholastics say of the love of God is adream. ] 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 havesaid that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law, i. E. , the affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in thefirst table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost. But ouradversaries are fine theologians; they regard the second table andpolitical works; for the first table [in which is contained thehighest theology, on which all depends] they care nothing, as thoughit were of no matter; or certainly they require only outwardobservances. They in no way consider the Law that is eternal, andplaced far above the sense and intellect of all creatures [whichconcerns the very Deity, and the honor of the eternal Majesty], Deut. 6, 5: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thine heart. [Thisthey treat as such a paltry small matter as if it did not belong totheology. ]

But Christ was given for this purpose, namely, that for His sakethere might be bestowed on us the remission of sins, and the HolyGhost to bring forth in us new and eternal life, and eternalrighteousness [to manifest Christ in our hearts, as it is writtenJohn 16, 15: He shall take of the things of Mine, and show them untoyou. Likewise, He works also other gifts, love, thanksgiving, charity, patience, etc. ]. Wherefore the Law cannot be truly keptunless the Holy Ghost be received through faith. Accordingly, Paulsays that the Law is established by faith, and not made void; becausethe Law can only then be thus kept when the Holy Ghost is given. AndPaul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 15 sq. , the veil that covered the face ofMoses cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the HolyGhost is received. For he speaks thus: But even unto this day, whenMoses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when itshall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lordis that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Paul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning theentire Law, the _Decalog_ and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocritesthink that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God and thatsacrifices and observances justify before God _ex opere operato_. But then this veil is removed from us, i. E. , we are freed from thiserror, when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and theheinousness of sin. Then, for the first time, we see that we are farfrom fulfilling the Law. Then we learn to know how flesh, insecurity and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fullycertain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are bornand die by chance. Then we experience that we do not believe thatGod forgives and hears us. But when, on hearing the Gospel and theremission of sins, we are consoled by faith, we receive the HolyGhost, so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and tofear and believe God, etc. From these facts it is apparent that theLaw cannot be kept without Christ and the Holy Ghost. 

We, therefore, profess that it is necessary that the Law be begun inus, and that it be observed continually more and more. And at thesame time we comprehend both spiritual movements and external goodworks [the good heart within and works without]. Therefore theadversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians do notteach good works, while they not only require these, but also showhow they can be done [that the heart must enter into these works, lest they be mere lifeless, cold works of hypocrites]. The resultconvicts hypocrites, who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil theLaw, that they cannot accomplish what they attempt. [For are theyfree from hatred, envy, strife, anger, wrath, avarice, adultery, etc. ?Why, these vices were nowhere greater than in the cloisters andsacred institutes. ] For human nature is far too weak to be able byits own powers to resist the devil, who holds as captives all whohave not been freed through faith. There is need of the power ofChrist against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that forChrist's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for thegovernance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither bedeceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary toGod's will. [Otherwise we should, every hour, fall into error andabominable vices. ] Just as Ps. 68, 18 teaches: Thou hast ledcaptivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for man. For Christ hasovercome the devil, and has given to us the promise and the HolyGhost, 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, thatHe might destroy the works of the devil. Again, we teach not onlyhow the Law can be observed, but also how God is pleased if anythingbe done, namely, not because we render satisfaction to the Law, butbecause we are in Christ, as we shall say after a little. It is, therefore, manifest that we require good works. Yea, we add alsothis, that it is impossible for love to God, even though it be small, to be sundered from faith, because through Christ we come to theFather, and, the remission of sins having been received, we now aretruly certain that we have a God, i. E. , that God cares for us; wecall upon Him, we give Him thanks, we fear Him, we love Him as Johnteaches in his first Epistle, 4, 19: We love Him he says, because Hefirst loved us, namely, because He gave His Son for us, and forgaveus our sins. Thus he indicates that faith precedes and love follows. Likewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance i. E. , itis conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath ofGod against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to befreed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faithought to grow and be strengthened. Wherefore it cannot exist inthose who live according to the flesh, who are delighted by their ownlusts and obey them. Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, whowalk 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 yelive after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, domortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Wherefore, the faithwhich receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeingfrom sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neitherdoes 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 theyteach only the Law. They do not teach that remission of sins throughfaith is first received. They do not teach of Christ as Mediator, that for Christ's sake we have a gracious God; but because of ourlove. 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 againstthe judgment of God confidence in their own works; for they say thatthey _merit de condigno_ (according to righteousness) grace andeternal life. This confidence is absolutely impious and vain. Forin this life we cannot satisfy the Law, because carnal nature doesnot cease to bring forth wicked dispositions [evil inclination anddesire], even though the Spirit in us resists them. 

But some one may ask: Since we also confess that love is a work ofthe Holy Ghost, and since it is righteousness, because it is thefulfilling of the Law, why do we not teach that it justifies? Tothis we must reply: In the first place, it is certain that we receiveremission of sins, neither through our love nor for the sake of ourlove, but for Christ's sake, by faith alone. Faith alone, whichlooks upon the promise, and knows that for this reason it must beregarded as certain that God forgives, because Christ has not died invain, etc. , overcomes the terrors of sin and death. If any onedoubts whether sins are remitted him, he dishonors Christ, since hejudges that his sin is greater or more efficacious than the death andpromise 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 thinksthat he obtains the remission of sins because he loves, he dishonorsChrist, and will discover in God's judgment that this confidence inhis own righteousness is wicked and vain. Therefore it is necessarythat faith [alone] reconciles and justifies. And as we do notreceive remission of sins through other virtues of the Law, or onaccount of these namely, on account of patience, chastity, obediencetowards magistrates, etc. , and nevertheless these virtues ought tofollow, so, too, we do not receive remission of sins because of loveto God although it is necessary that this should follow. Besides, the custom of speech is well known that by the same word we sometimescomprehend by synecdoche the cause and effects. Thus in Luke 7, 47Christ says: Her sins, which are many, are forgiven for she lovedmuch. For Christ interprets Himself [this very passage] when He adds:Thy faith hath saved thee. Christ, therefore, did not mean that thewoman, by that work of love, had merited the remission of sins. Forthat is the reason He says: Thy faith hath sated thee. But faith isthat 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 hecan rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does notunderstand at all what faith is. [For the terrified conscience isnot satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and iscomforted and encouraged alone by God's Word. ] And the narrativeitself shows in this passage what that is which He calls love. Thewoman came with the opinion concerning Christ that with Him theremission of sins should be sought. This worship is the highestworship of Christ. Nothing greater could she ascribe to Christ. Toseek from Him the remission of sins was truly to acknowledge theMessiah. Now, thus to think of Christ, thus to worship Him, thus toembrace Him, is truly to believe. Christ, moreover, employed theword "love" not towards the woman, but against the Pharisee, becauseHe contrasted the entire worship of the Pharisee with the entireworship of the woman. He reproved the Pharisee because he did notacknowledge that He was the Messiah, although he rendered Him theoutward offices due to a guest and a great and holy man. He pointsto the woman and praises her worship, ointment, tears, etc. , all ofwhich were signs of faith and a confession, namely, that with Christshe sought the remission of sins. It is indeed a great example which, not without reason, moved Christ to reprove the Pharisee, who was awise and honorable man, but not a believer. He charges him withimpiety, and admonishes him by the example of the woman, showingthereby that it is disgraceful to him, that, while an unlearned womanbelieves God, he, a doctor of the Law, does not believe, does notacknowledge the Messiah, and does not seek from Him remission of sinsand salvation. Thus, therefore, He praises the entire worship [faithwith its fruits, but towards the Pharisee He names only the fruitswhich prove to men that there is faith in the heart] as it oftenoccurs in the Scriptures that by one word we embrace many things; asbelow 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 alsothe righteousness of faith. Thus He here says: Her sins, which aremany, are forgiven, for she loved much i. E. , because she has trulyworshiped Me with faith and the exercises and signs of faith. Hecomprehends the entire worship. Meanwhile He teaches this, that theremission of sins is properly received by faith, although love, confession, and other good fruits ought to follow. Wherefore He doesnot mean this, that these fruits are the price, or are thepropitiation, because of which the remission of sins, whichreconciles us to God, is given. We are disputing concerning a greatsubject, concerning the honor of Christ, and whence good minds mayseek for sure and firm consolation whether confidence is to be placedin 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 isvain, and that consciences rush thence into despair. But if theremission of sins and reconciliation do not occur freely for Christ'ssake, but for the sake of our love, no one will have remission ofsins, unless when he has fulfilled the entire Law, because the Lawdoes not justify as long as it can accuse us. Therefore it ismanifest that, since justification is reconciliation for Christ'ssake we are justified by faith, because it is very certain that byfaith alone the remission of sins is received. 

Now, therefore, let us reply to the objection which we have abovestated: [Why does love not justify anybody before God?] Theadversaries are right in thinking that love is the fulfilling of theLaw, and obedience to the Law is certainly righteousness. [Thereforeit 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 lovesGod as the Law has commanded? We have shown above that God has madethe promise of grace, because we cannot observe the Law. ThereforePaul says everywhere that we cannot be justified before God by theLaw. ] But they make a mistake in this that they think that we arejustified by the Law. [The adversaries have to fail at this point, and miss the main issue, for in this business they only behold theLaw. For all men's reason and wisdom cannot but hold that we mustbecome pious by the Law, and that a person externally observing theLaw is holy and pious. But the Gospel faces us about, directs usaway from the Law to the divine promises, and teaches that we are notjustified, etc. ] Since, however, we are not justified by the Law[because no person can keep it], but receive remission of sins andreconciliation by faith for Christ's sake, and not for the sake oflove or the fulfilling of the Law, it follows necessarily that we arejustified by faith in Christ. [For before we fulfil one tittle ofthe Law, there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled toGod and first obtain the remission of sin. Good God, how dare peoplecall themselves Christians or say that they once at least looked intoor read the books of the Gospel when they still deny that we obtainremission of sins by faith in Christ? Why, to a Christian it isshocking merely to hear such a statement. ]

Again, [in the second place, ] this fulfilling of the Law or obediencetowards the Law, is indeed righteousness, when it is complete; but inus it is small and impure. [For, although they have received thefirst-fruits of the Spirit, and the new, yea the eternal life hasbegun 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 ownsake. But although from those things which have been said above itis evident that justification signifies not the beginning of therenewal, but the reconciliation by which also we afterwards areaccepted, nevertheless it can now be seen much more clearly that theinchoate fulfilling of the Law does not justify, because it isaccepted only on account of faith. [Trusting in our own fulfilmentof the Law is sheer idolatry and blaspheming Christ, and in the endit collapses and causes our consciences to despair. Therefore, thisfoundation shall stand forever, namely, that for Christ's sake we areaccepted with God, and justified by faith, not on account of our loveand works. This we shall make so plain and certain that anybody maygrasp it. As long as the heart is not at peace with God, it cannotbe righteous, for it flees from the wrath of God, despairs, and wouldhave God not to judge it. Therefore the heart cannot be righteousand accepted with God while it is not at peace with God. Now, faithalone makes the heart to be content, and obtains peace and life Rom. 5, 1, because it confidently and frankly relies on the promise of Godfor Christ's sake. But our works do not make the heart content, forwe always find that they are not pure. Therefore it must follow thatwe are accepted with God, and justified by faith alone, when in ourhearts we conclude that God desires to be gracious to us, not onaccount of our works and fulfilment of the Law, but from pure grace, for Christ's sake. What can our opponents bring forward against thisargument? 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 becomeafflicted, our works and worship cannot set the heart at rest. Scripture indicates this often enough as in Ps. 143, 2: Enter notinto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man livingbe justified. Here he clearly shows that all the saints, all thepious children of God, who have the Holy Ghost, if God would not bygrace 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 hisrighteousness, and asks God to protect his cause and word, for hesays: Judge, O Lord, my cause. Again, in Ps. 130, 3 he clearlystates that no person, not even the greatest saints, can bear God'sjudgment, if He were to observe our iniquity, as he says: If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand! And thussays 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 myhands never so clean, yet shalt Thou plunge me in the ditch. AndProv. 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 truthis not in us. And in the Lord's Prayer the saints ask for theforgiveness of sins. Therefore even the saints have guilt and sins. Again in Num. 14, 18: The innocent will not be innocent. AndZechariah, 2, 13, says: Be silent O all flesh, before the Lord. AndIsaiah 40, 6 sqq. : All flesh is grass, i. E. , flesh and righteousnessof 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, cannotpreserve us. These and similar declarations in the Scripturestestify that our works are unclean, and that we need mercy. Wherefore works do not render consciences pacified but only mercyapprehended by faith does. ] Nor must we trust that we are accountedrighteous 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 beMediator after we have been renewed. They err who imagine that Hehas merited only a first grace, and that afterwards we please God andmerit eternal life by our fulfilling of the Law. Christ remainsMediator, and we ought always to be confident that for His sake wehave a reconciled God even although we are unworthy. As Paul clearlyteaches 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 beenreceived, as I stated, are still weak and not at all pure. For sinand Adam's fall are not such a trifling thing as reason holds orimagines, it exceeds the reason and thought of all men to understandwhat a horrible wrath of God has been handed on to us by thatdisobedience. There occurred a shocking corruption of the entirehuman nature, which no work of man, but only God Himself, canrestore], 1 Cor. 4, 4: I know nothing by myself, yet am I not herebyjustified, but he knows that by faith he is accounted righteous forChrist's sake, according to the passage: Blessed are they whoseiniquities are forgiven, Ps. 32, 1; Rom. 4, 7. [Therefore we needgrace, and the gracious goodness of God, and the forgiveness of sin, although we have done many good works. ] But this remission is alwaysreceived by faith. Likewise, the imputation of the righteousness ofthe Gospel is from the promise; therefore it is always received byfaith, and it always must be regarded certain that by faith we arefor Christ's sake, accounted righteous. If the regenerate oughtafterwards to think that they will be accepted on account of thefulfilling of the Law, when would conscience be certain that itpleased God, since we never satisfy the Law? Accordingly, we mustalways recur to the promise; by this our infirmity must be sustained, and we must regard it as certain that we are accounted righteous forthe sake of Christ, who is ever at the right hand of God, who alsomaketh intercession for us, Rom. 8, 34. If any one think that he isrighteous 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 isrighteous before God when Christ is excluded as Propitiator andMediator. 

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 areborn 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 drivento despair. For the Law unceasingly accuses us, since we never cansatisfy the Law. ] All Scripture, all the Church cries out that theLaw cannot be satisfied. Therefore this inchoate fulfilment of theLaw does not please on its own account, but on account of faith inChrist. Otherwise the Law always accuses us. For who loves or fearsGod sufficiently? Who with sufficient patience bears the afflictionsimposed by God? Who does not frequently doubt whether human affairsare ruled by God's counsel or by chance? Who does not frequentlydoubt whether he be heard by God? Who is not frequently enragedbecause the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious, because thepious are oppressed by the wicked? Who does satisfaction to his owncalling? Who loves his neighbor as himself? Who is not tempted bylust? Accordingly Paul says, Rom. 7, 19: The good that I would I donot; but the evil which I would not that I do. Likewise v. 25: Withthe mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh, the lawof sin. Here he openly declares that he serves the law of sin. AndDavid says, Ps. 143, 2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; forin Thy sight shall no man living be justified. Here even a servantof 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, whichcould 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 showsthat even saints ought to seek remission of sins. More than blindare those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh aresins, of which Paul, Gal. 5, 17, says: The flesh lusteth against theSpirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. The flesh distrusts God, trusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, evencontrary to God's will, flees from afflictions, which it ought tobear because of God's commands, doubts concerning God's mercy, etc. The Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [withAdam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of theold Adam, this desperately wicked disposition], and to produce newspiritual movements. But concerning this topic we will collect moretestimonies below, although they are everywhere obvious not only inthe Scriptures, but also in the holy Fathers. 

Well does Augustine say: All the commandments of God are fulfilledwhen whatever is not done, is forgiven. Therefore he requires faitheven in good works [which the Holy Spirit produces in us], in orderthat we may believe that for Christ's sake we please God, and thateven the works are not of themselves worthy and pleasing. And Jerome, against the Pelagians, says: Then, therefore, we are righteous whenwe confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness consistsnot in our own merit, but in God's mercy. Therefore, in thisinchoate fulfilment of the Law, faith ought to be present, which iscertain that for Christ's sake we have a reconciled God. For mercycannot be apprehended unless by faith, as has been repeatedly saidabove. [Therefore those who teach that we are not accepted by faithfor Christ's sake but for the sake of our own works, lead consciencesinto despair. ] Wherefore, when Paul says, Rom. 3, 31: We establishthe Law through faith, by this we ought to understand, not only thatthose regenerated by faith receive the Holy Ghost, and have movementsagreeing with God's Law, but it is by far of the greatest importancethat we add also this, that we ought to perceive that we are fardistant from the perfection of the Law. Wherefore we cannot concludethat we are accounted righteous before God because of our fulfillingof the Law, but in order that the conscience may become tranquil, justification must be sought elsewhere. For we are not righteousbefore God as long as we flee from God's judgment, and are angry withGod. Therefore we must conclude that, being reconciled by faith, weare accounted righteous for Christ's sake, not for the sake of theLaw or our works, but that this inchoate fulfilling of the Lawpleases on account of faith, and that, on account of faith, there isno imputation of the imperfection of the fulfilling of the Law, eventhough the sight of our impurity terrifies us. Now, if justificationis to be sought elsewhere, our love and works do not thereforejustify. Far above our purity, yea, far above the Law itself oughtto be placed the death and satisfaction of Christ, presented to usthat we might be sure that because of this satisfaction, and notbecause of our fulfilling of the Law, we have a gracious God. 

Paul teaches this in Gal. 3, 13, when he says: Christ hath redeemedus from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, i. E. The Lawcondemns all men, but Christ, because without sin He has borne thepunishment of sin, and been made a victim for us has removed thatright of the Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him, because He Himself is the propitiation for them for whose sake we arenow accounted righteous. But since they are accounted righteous, theLaw cannot accuse or condemn them, even though they have not actuallysatisfied 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 yeare still far from the perfection of the Law, yet the remnants of sindo not condemn you, because for Christ's sake we have a sure and firmreconciliation, if you believe, even though sin inhere in your flesh. 

The promise ought always to be in sight that God, because of Hispromise, wishes for Christ's sake, and not because of the Law or ourworks, to be gracious and to justify. In this promise timidconsciences ought to seek reconciliation and justification, by thispromise they ought to sustain themselves, and be confident that forChrist's sake, because of His promise, they have a gracious God. Thus works can never render a conscience pacified, but only thepromise can. If, therefore, justification and peace of consciencemust be sought elsewhere than in love and works, love and works donot justify, although they are virtues and pertain to therighteousness of the Law, in so far as they are a fulfilling of theLaw. So far also this obedience of the Law justifies by therighteousness of the Law. But this imperfect righteousness of theLaw is not accepted by God, unless on account of faith. Accordinglyit 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 faithalone [i. E. , it obtains the remission of sins and grace for Christ'ssake and regenerates us. Likewise, it is quite clear that by faithalone the Holy Ghost is received; again, that our works and thisinchoate 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 myrighteousness elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the grace ofChrist, again, if only faith calms the conscience, it must, indeed becertain that only faith justifies before God. For, if we wish toteach correctly, we must adhere to this, that we are accepted withGod not on account of the Law, not on account of works, but forChrist's sake. For the honor, due Christ, must not be given to theLaw or our-miserable works. ] because by faith alone we receiveremission of sins and reconciliation, because reconciliation orjustification is a matter promised for Christ's sake, and not for thesake 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, thedistinction between the Law and the promises, or the Gospel, it willbe easy to resolve the objections of the adversaries. For they citepassages concerning the Law and works, and omit passages concerningthe promises. But a reply can once for all be made to all opinionsconcerning the Law, namely, that the Law cannot be observed withoutChrist, and that if civil works are wrought without Christ, they donot please God. [God is not pleased with the person. ] Wherefore, when works are commended, it is necessary to add that faith isrequired, that they are commended on account of faith, that they arethe fruits and testimonies of faith. [This our doctrine is, indeed, plain; it need not fear the light, and may be held against the HolyScriptures. We have also clearly and correctly presented it here, ifany will receive instruction and not knowingly deny the truth. Forrightly to understand the benefit of Christ and the great treasure ofthe Gospel (which Paul extols so greatly), we must separate, on theone hand, the promise of God and the grace that is offered, and, onthe other hand the Law, as far as the heavens are from the earth. Inshaky matters many explanations are needed, but in a good matter oneor two thoroughgoing explanations dissolve all objections which menthink they can raise. ] Ambiguous and dangerous cases produce many andvarious solutions. For the judgment of the ancient poet is true:

"An unjust cause, being In Itself sick, requires skilfully appliedremedies. "

But in just and sure cases one or two explanations derived from thesources correct all things that seem to offend. This occurs also inthis case of ours. For the rule which I have just recited, explainsall the passages that are cited concerning the Law and works [namely, that without Christ the Law cannot be truly observed, and althoughexternal works may be performed, still the person doing them does notplease God outside of Christ]. For we acknowledge that Scriptureteaches in some places the Law, and in other places the Gospel, orthe gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ's sake. But our adversaries absolutely abolish the free promise when theydeny that faith justifies, and teach that for the sake of love and ofour works we receive remission of sins and reconciliation. If theremission of sins depends upon the condition of our works, it isaltogether uncertain. [For we can never be certain whether we doenough works, or whether our works are sufficiently holy and pure. Thus, too, the forgiveness of sins is made uncertain, and the promiseof God perishes, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 14: The promise is made ofnone effect, and everything is rendered uncertain. ] Therefore thepromise will be abolished. Hence we refer godly minds to theconsideration of the promises, and we teach concerning the freeremission of sins and concerning reconciliation, which occurs throughfaith 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 thesake of the Law we are accepted with God, but because God requiresgood works. ] And it is necessary to divide these things aright, asPaul says, 2 Tim. 2, 15. We must see what Scripture ascribes to theLaw, and what to the promises. For it praises works in such a way asnot to remove the free promise [as to place the promise of God andthe true treasure, Christ, a thousand leagues above it]. 

For good works are to be done on account of God's command, likewisefor the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2, 10: We are Hisworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on accountof confession and giving of thanks. For these reasons good worksought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in theflesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of theHoly Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account ofChrist, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining tothe government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before thisworld. For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil, and, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to thekingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness, declares His power. The dangers, labors, and sermons of the ApostlePaul, of Athanasius, Augustine, and the like, who taught the churches, are holy works, are true sacrifices acceptable to God, are contestsof Christ through which He repressed the devil, and drove him fromthose who believed. David's labors, in waging wars and in his homegovernment, are holy works, are true sacrifices, are contests of God, defending the people who had the Word of God against the devil, inorder that the knowledge of God might not be entirely extinguished onearth. We think thus also concerning every good work in the humblestcallings and in private affairs. Through these works Christcelebrates His victory over the devil, just as the distribution ofalms by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 16, 1, was a holy work and asacrifice and contest of Christ against the devil, who labors thatnothing may be done for the praise of God. To disparage such works, the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortificationsof the flesh would be indeed to disparage the outward government ofChrist's kingdom among men. Here also we add something concerningrewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered andpromised to the works of believers. We teach that good works aremeritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace orjustification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for otherrewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this lifebecause Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his ownreward, according to his own labor. There will, therefore, bedifferent rewards according to different labors. But the remissionof sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and isoffered freely to all who believe that for Christ's sake their sinsare remitted. Therefore the remission of sins and justification arereceived only by faith, and not on account of any works, as isevident in the terrors of conscience, because none of our works canbe opposed to God's wrath, as Paul clearly says, Rom. 5, 1: Beingjustified by faith, toe have peace with God through our Lord JesusChrist, by whom also we have access by faith, etc. But because faithmakes sons of God, it also makes coheirs with Christ. Therefore, because by our works we do not merit justification, through which weare made sons of God, and coheirs with Christ, we do not by our worksmerit eternal life; for faith obtains this, because faith justifiesus and has a reconciled God. But eternal life is due the justified, according to the passage Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He alsoglorified. Paul, Eph. 6, 2, commends to us the commandmentconcerning honoring parents, by mention of the reward which is addedto that commandment where he does not mean that obedience to parentsjustifies us before God, but that, when it occurs in those who havebeen justified, it merits other great rewards. Yet God exercises Hissaints variously, and often defers the rewards of the righteousnessof works in order that they may learn not to trust in their ownrighteousness, and may learn to seek the will of God rather than therewards, as appears in Job, in Christ, and other saints. And of this, many psalms teach us, which console us against the happiness of thewicked, 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, thedoctrine of repentance is also proclaimed against the godless, whoseworks are wicked; and the wrath of God is displayed, which He hasthreatened all who do not repent. We therefore praise and requiregood works, and show many reasons why they ought to be done. 

Thus of works Paul also teaches when he says, Rom. 4, 9 sq. , thatAbraham received circumcision, not in order that by this work hemight be justified; for by faith he had already attained it that hewas accounted righteous. But circumcision was added in order that hemight have in his body a written sign, admonished by which he mightexercise faith, and by which also he might confess his faith beforeothers, and by his testimony might invite others to believe. Byfaith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice, Heb. 11, 4. Because, therefore, he was just by faith, the sacrifice which he madewas pleasing to God, not that by this work he merited the remissionof sins and grace, but that he exercised his faith and showed it toothers, in order to invite them to believe. 

Although in this way good works ought to follow faith, men who cannotbelieve and be sure that for Christ's sake they are freely forgiven, and that freely for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God, employworks far otherwise. When they see the works of saints, they judgein a human manner that saints have merited the remission of sins andgrace through these works. Accordingly, they imitate them, and thinkthat 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 accountedrighteous. This godless opinion concerning works we condemn. In thefirst place, because it obscures the glory of Christ when men offerto God these works as a price and propitiation. This honor, due toChrist alone, is ascribed to our works. Secondly, they neverthelessdo not find, in these works, peace of conscience, but in true terrors, heaping up works upon works, they at length despair because theyfind no work sufficiently pure [sufficiently important and preciousto 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 knowledgeof God [nor of His will]; for, as in anger they flee from God, whojudges and afflicts them, they never believe that they are heard. But faith manifests the presence of God, since it is certain that Godfreely forgives and hears us. 

Moreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed inthe world [sticks to the world quite tightly]. The heathen hadsacrifices, derived from the fathers. They imitated their works. Their faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were apropitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled tothem. The people in the law [the Israelites] imitated sacrificeswith the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God, so to say, _ex opere operato_. We see here how earnestly theprophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50, 8: I will not reprove thee forthy sacrifices, and Jer. 7, 22: I spake not unto your fathersconcerning burnt offerings. Such passages condemn not works, whichGod certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government, but they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thoughtthat by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and thus castaway faith. And because no works pacify the conscience, new works, in addition to God's commands, were from time to time devised [thehypocrites nevertheless used to invent one work after another, onesacrifice after another, by a blind guess and in reckless wantonness, and all this without the word and command of God, with wickedconscience as we have seen in the Papacy]. The people of Israel hadseen the prophets sacrificing on high places [and in groves]. Besides, the examples of the saints very greatly move the minds ofthose, hoping by similar works to obtain grace just as these saintsobtained it. [But the saints believed. ] Wherefore the people began, with remarkable zeal, to imitate this work, in order that by such awork [they might appease the wrath of God] they might merit remissionof sins, grace, and righteousness. But the prophets had beensacrificing on high places, not that by these works they might meritthe remission of sins and grace, but because on these places theytaught, and, accordingly, presented there a testimony of their faith. The people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son. Whereforethey 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 withthe opinion that this work was a price and propitiatory work for thesake of which he was accounted righteous. Thus in the Church theLord's Supper was instituted that by remembrance of the promises ofChrist, of which we are admonished in this sign, faith might bestrengthened in us, and we might publicly confess our faith, andproclaim the benefits of Christ, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 26: Asoften as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord'sdeath, etc. But our adversaries contend that the mass is a work thatjustifies us _ex opere operato_, and removes the guilt and liabilityto punishment in those for whom it is celebrated, for thus writesGabriel. 

Anthony, Bernard, Dominicus, Franciscus, and other holy Fathersselected a certain kind of life either for the sake of study [of morereadily reading the Holy Scriptures] or other useful exercises. Inthe mean time they believed that by faith they were accountedrighteous for Christ's sake, and that God was gracious to them, noton account of those exercises of their own. But the multitude sincethen has imitated not the faith of the Fathers, but their examplewithout faith, in order that by such works they might merit theremission of sins, grace, and righteousness: they did not believethat they received these freely on account of Christ as Propitiator. [Thus the human mind always exalts works too highly, and puts them inthe wrong place. And this error the Gospel reproves which teachesthat men are accounted righteous not for the sake of the Law, but forthe sake of Christ alone. Christ, however, is apprehended by faithalone; wherefore we are accounted righteous by faith alone forChrist's sake. ] Thus the world judges of all works that they are apropitiation by which God is appeased; that they are a price becauseof which we are accounted righteous. It does not believe that Christis Propitiator; it does not believe that by faith we freely attainthat we are accounted righteous for Christ's sake. And, nevertheless, since works cannot pacify the conscience, others are continuallychosen, new rites are performed, new vows made, and new orders ofmonks formed beyond the command of God, in order that some great workmay be sought which may be set against the wrath and judgment of God. Contrary to Scripture, the adversaries uphold these godless opinionsconcerning works. But to ascribe to our works these things, namely, that they are a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sinsand grace that for the sake of these and not by faith for the sake ofChrist as Propitiator we are accounted righteous before God, whatelse is this than to deny Christ the honor of Mediator andPropitiator? Although, therefore, we believe and teach that goodworks must necessarily be done (for the inchoate fulfilling of theLaw ought to follow faith), nevertheless we give to Christ His ownhonor. We believe and teach that by faith, for Christ's sake, we areaccounted righteous before God, that we are not accounted righteousbecause of works without Christ as Mediator, that by works we do notmerit the remission of sins, grace, and righteousness, that we cannotset our works against the wrath and justice of God, that works cannotovercome the terrors of sin, but that the terrors of sin are overcomeby faith alone, that only Christ the Mediator is to be presented byfaith against the wrath and judgment of God. If any one thinkdifferently, he does not give Christ due honor, who has been setforth that He might be a Propitiator, that through Him we might haveaccess to the Father. We are speaking now of the righteousnessthrough which we treat with God not with men, but by which weapprehend grace and peace of conscience. Conscience however, cannotbe pacified before God, unless by faith alone, which is certain thatGod for Christ's sake is reconciled to us, according to Rom. 5, 1:Being justified by faith, we have peace because justification is onlya matter freely promised for Christ's sake, and therefore is alwaysreceived 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 1Cor. 13, 2 they cite: Though I have all faith, etc. , and hove notcharity, I am nothing. And here they triumph greatly. Paultestifies to the entire Church, they say, that faith alone does notjustify. But a reply is easy after we have shown above what we holdconcerning love and works. This passage of Paul requires love. Wealso require this. For we have said above that renewal and theinchoate 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 theirhearts. If any one should cast away love, even though he have greatfaith, yet he does not retain it, for he does not retain the HolyGhost [he becomes cold and is now again fleshly, without Spirit andfaith; for the Holy Ghost is not where Christian love and otherfruits of the Spirit are not]. Nor indeed does Paul in this passagetreat of the mode of justification, but he writes to those who, afterthey had been justified, should be urged to bring forth good fruitslest they might lose the Holy Ghost. The adversaries, furthermore, treat the matter preposterously: they cite this one passage, in whichPaul 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, whichtreat of faith, namely, that they ought to be understood as applyingto _fides formata_. Here they add no correction that there is alsoneed of the faith that holds that we are accounted righteous for thesake of Christ as Propitiator. Thus the adversaries exclude Christfrom justification, and teach only a righteousness of the Law. Butlet us return to Paul. No one can infer anything more from this textthan that love is necessary. This we confess. So also not to committheft is necessary. But the reasoning will not be correct if someone would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: "Not tocommit theft is necessary. Therefore, not to commit theft justifies. "Because justification is not the approval of a certain work, but ofthe entire person. Hence this passage from Paul does not harm us;only the adversaries must not in imagination add to it whatever theyplease. For he does not say that love justifies, but: ["And if Ihave not love"] "I am nothing, " namely, that faith, however great itmay have been, is extinguished. He does not say that love overcomesthe terrors of sin and of death that we can set our love against thewrath and judgment of God, that our love satisfies God's Law, thatwithout Christ as Propitiator we have access, by our love, to God, that by our love we receive the promised remission of sins. Paulsays nothing of this. He does not, therefore, think that lovejustifies, because we are justified only when we apprehend Christ asPropitiator, and believe that for Christ's sake God is reconciled tous. Neither is justification even to be dreamed of with the omissionof Christ as Propitiator. If there be no need of Christ, if by ourlove we can overcome death, if by our love, without Christ asPropitiator' we have access to God, then let our adversaries removethe promise concerning Christ, then let them abolish the Gospel[which teaches that we have access to God through Christ asPropitiator, and that we are accepted not for the sake of ourfulfilling of the Law, but for Christ's sake]. The adversariescorrupt very many passages, because they bring to them their ownopinions, and do not derive the meaning from the passages themselves. For what difficulty is there in this passage if we remove theinterpretation which the adversaries, who do not understand whatjustification is or how it occurs [what faith is, what Christ is, orhow a man is justified before God], out of their own mind attach toit? The Corinthians, being justified before, had received manyexcellent gifts. In the beginning they glowed with zeal, just as isgenerally the case. Then dissensions [factions and sects] began toarise among them as Paul indicates; they began to dislike goodteachers. Accordingly, Paul reproves them, recalling them [to unityand] to offices of love. Although these are necessary, yet it wouldbe foolish to imagine that works of the Second Table, through whichwe have to do with man and not properly with God, justify us. But injustification we have to treat with God; His wrath must be appeased, and conscience must be pacified with respect to God. None of theseoccur through the works of the Second Table [by love, but only byfaith, which apprehends Christ and the promise of God. However, itis true that losing love involves losing the Spirit and faith. Andthus Paul says: If I have not love, I am nothing. But he does notadd the affirmative statement, that love justifies in the sight ofGod]. 

But they object that love is preferred to faith and hope. For Paulsays, 1 Cor. 13, 13: The greatest of these is charity. Now, it isreasonable that the greatest and chief virtue should justify, although Paul, in this passage, properly speaks of love towards one'sneighbor, and indicates that love is the greatest, because it hasmost fruits. Faith and hope have to do only with God; but love hasinfinite offices externally towards men. [Love goes forth upon earthamong the people, and does much good, by consoling, teaching, instructing, helping, counseling privately and publicly. ]Nevertheless, let us, indeed, grant to the adversaries that lovetowards God and our neighbor is the greatest virtue, because thechief commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God Matt. 22, 37. But how will they infer thence that love justifies? Thegreatest virtue, they say, justifies. By no means. [It would betrue if we had a gracious God because of our virtue. Now, it wasproven above that we are accepted and justified for Christ's sake, not because of our virtue, for our virtue is impure. ] For just aseven the greatest or first Law does not justify, so also the greatestvirtue of the Law does not justify. [For, as the Law and virtue ishigher, and our ability to do the same proportionately lower, we arenot righteous because of love. ] But that virtue justifies whichapprehends Christ, which communicates to us Christ's merits, by whichwe receive grace and peace from God. But this virtue is faith. Foras it has been often said, faith is not only knowledge, but muchrather willing to receive or apprehend those things which are offeredin the promise concerning Christ. Moreover this obedience towardsGod, namely, to wish to receive the offered promise, is no less adivine service, _latreia_, than is love. God wishes us to believeHim, and to receive from Him blessings, and this He declares to betrue divine service. 

But the adversaries ascribe justification to love because theyeverywhere teach and require the righteousness of the Law. For wecannot deny that love is the highest work of the Law. And humanwisdom gazes at the Law, and seeks in it justification. Accordingly, also the scholastic doctors, great and talented men, proclaim this asthe 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 theGospel, in which another righteousness is revealed, namely, that forthe sake of Christ, as Propitiator, we are accounted righteous, whenwe believe that for Christ's sake God has been reconciled to us. Neither are we ignorant how far distant this doctrine is from thejudgment of reason and of the Law. Nor are we ignorant that thedoctrine of the Law concerning love makes a much greater show; for itis 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, byHis Holy Ghost, to aid us that we may be able to make this clear andmanifest. 

The adversaries, in the Confutation, have also cited against us Col. 3, 14: Charity, which is the bond of perfectness. From this theyinfer that love justifies because it renders men perfect. Although areply concerning perfection could here be made in many ways, yet wewill simply recite the meaning of Paul. It is certain that Paulspoke of love towards one's neighbor. Neither must we indeed thinkthat Paul would ascribe either justification or perfection to theworks of the Second Table, rather than to those of the First. And iflove render men perfect, there will then be no need of Christ asPropitiator, [However, Paul teaches in all places that we areaccepted on account of Christ, and not on account of our love, or ourworks, or of the Law; for no saint (as was stated before) perfectlyfulfils the Law. Therefore since he in all places writes and teachesthat in this life there is no perfection in our works, it is not tobe thought that he speaks here of personal perfection. ] for faithapprehends Christ only as Propitiator. This, however, is far distantfrom the meaning of Paul, who never suffers Christ to be excluded asPropitiator. Therefore he speaks not of personal perfection, but ofthe integrity common to the Church [concerning the unity of theChurch and the word which they interpret as perfection means nothingelse than to be not rent]. For on this account he says that love isa bond or connection, to signify that he speaks of the binding andjoining together, with each other, of the many members of the Church. For just as in all families and in all states concord should benourished by mutual offices, and tranquillity cannot be retainedunless men overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves; soPaul commands that there should be love in the Church in order thatit may preserve concord, bear with the harsher manners of brethren asthere is need, overlook certain less serious mistakes, lest theChurch fly apart into various schisms, and enmities and factions andheresies arise from the schisms. 

For concord must necessarily he rent asunder whenever either thebishops impose [without cause] upon the people heavier burdens, orhave no respect to weakness in the people. And dissensions arisewhen the people judge too severely [quickly censure and criticize]concerning the conduct [walk and life] of teachers [bishops orpreachers], or despise the teachers because of certain less seriousfaults; for then both another kind of doctrine and other teachers aresought after. On the other hand, perfection, i. E. , the integrity ofthe Church, is preserved, when the strong bear with the weak, whenthe people take in good part some faults in the conduct of theirteachers [have patience also with their preachers], when the bishopsmake some allowances for the weakness of the people [know how toexercise forbearance to the people, according to circumstances, withrespect to all kinds of weaknesses and faults]. Of these precepts ofequity the books of all the wise are full, namely, that in every daylife we should make many allowances mutually for the sake of commontranquillity. And of this Paul frequently teaches both here andelsewhere. Wherefore the adversaries argue indiscreetly from theterm "perfection" that love justifies, while Paul speaks of commonintegrity and tranquillity. And thus Ambrose interprets this passage:Just as a building is said to be perfect or entire when all itsparts are fitly joined together with one another. Moreover, it isdisgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much concerning lovewhile they nowhere exhibit it. What are they now doing? They arerending asunder churches, they are writing laws in blood, and areproposing to the most clement prince, the Emperor, that these shouldbe promulgated; they are slaughtering priests and other good men, ifany one have [even] slightly intimated that he does not entirelyapprove some manifest abuse. [They wish all dead who say a singleword against their godless doctrine. ] These things are not consistentwith those declamations of love, which if the adversaries wouldfollow, the churches would be tranquil and the state have peace. Forthese tumults would be quieted if the adversaries would not insistwith too much bitterness [from sheer vengeful spite and pharisaicalenvy, against the truth which they have perceived] upon certaintraditions, useless for godliness, most of which not even those verypersons observe who most earnestly defend them. But they easilyforgive themselves, and yet do not likewise forgive others, accordingto the passage in the poet: I forgive myself, Maevius said. But thisis very far distant from those encomiums of love which they hererecite from Paul, nor do they understand the word any more than thewalls which give it back. From Peter they cite also this sentence, 1Pet. 4, 8: Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. It is evidentthat also Peter speaks of love towards one's neighbor, because hejoins this passage to the precept by which he commands that theyshould love one another. Neither could it have come into the mind ofany apostle that our love overcomes sin and death; that love is thepropitiation on account of which to the exclusion of Christ asMediator, God is reconciled; that love is righteousness withoutChrist as Mediator. For this love, if there would be any, would be arighteousness of the Law, and not of the Gospel, which promises to usreconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, for the sake ofChrist as Propitiator, the Father has been reconciled, and that themerits 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 beconfounded. When God judges and convicts us, our love does not freeus from confusion [from our works and lives, we truly suffer shame]. But faith in Christ liberates us in these fears, because we know thatfor 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 teachesprecisely the same thing as that passage of Paul taken fromColossians, that if any dissensions would occur, they should bemoderated and settled by our equitable and lenient conduct. Dissensions, it says, increase by means of hatred, as we often seethat from the most trifling offenses tragedies arise [from thesmallest sparks a great conflagration arises]. Certain triflingoffenses occurred between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which, if theone had yielded a very little to the other, civil war would not havearisen. But while each indulged his own hatred, from a matter of noaccount the greatest commotions arose. And many heresies have arisenin the Church only from the hatred of the teachers. Therefore itdoes not refer to a person's own faults, but to the faults of others, when it says: Charity covereth sins, namely, those of others, andthat, too, among men, i. E. , even though these offenses occur, yetlove overlooks them, forgives, yields, and does not carry all thingsto the extremity of justice. Peter, therefore, does not mean thatlove merits in God's sight the remission of sins, that it is apropitiation to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, that itregenerates and justifies, but that it is not morose, harsh, intractable towards men, that it overlooks some mistakes of itsfriends, that it takes in good part even the harsher manners ofothers, just as the well-known maxim enjoins: Know, but do rot hate, the manners of a fiend. Nor was it without design that the apostletaught so frequently concerning this office what the philosopherscall epieicheia, leniency. For this virtue is necessary forretaining public harmony [in the Church and the civil government], which cannot last unless pastors and Churches mutually overlook andpardon many things [if they want to be extremely particular aboutevery defect, and do not allow many things to flow by withoutnoticing them]. 

From James they cite 2, 24: Ye see, then how by works a man isjustified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposedto be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning themerits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is ofdisadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, theadversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means ofgood works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are apropitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us;that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death; that goodworks are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; andthat they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of allthese things came into the mind of James, which the adversariesnevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James. 

In the first place, then, we must ponder this, namely, that thepassage is more against the adversaries than against us. For theadversaries teach that man is justified by love and works. Of faith, by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing. Yeathey condemn this faith; nor do they condemn it only in sentences andwritings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavorto exterminate it in the Church. How much better does James teach, who does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, butretains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded asPropitiator! Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of theChristian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1, 5: The end of thecommandment 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 spokenof as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living andefficacious in the heart. James, therefore, did not believe that bygood works we merit the remission of sins and grace. For he speaksof the works of those who have been justified, who have already beenreconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins. Wherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches thatwe merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by ourworks 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 bea kind of first-fruits of His creatures. When he says that we havebeen born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been bornagain and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ isapprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sinand of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are bornagain 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 havefaith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between deadand living faith. He says that that is dead which does not bringforth good works [and fruits of the Spirit: obedience, patience, chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth goodworks. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we termfaith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely thehistory concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, butof faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers andconsoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the HolyGhost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors ofdeath, of sin, etc. ]. Such faith is neither an easy matter, as theadversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is tobelieve! etc. ], nor a human power [thought which I can form formyself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by whichwe overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians, 2, 12, that faith is efficacious through the power of God, andovercomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faithof the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, itnecessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a newlight and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind andspirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works. ]Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by sucha faith as is without works. But when he says that we are justifiedby faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born againby works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is ourPropitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does hedescribe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the justare, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For heis speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is wellsaid: He who has faith and good works is righteous; not, indeed, onaccount of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as agood tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does notmake the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, althoughthey do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must firstbe good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith forChrist's sake. The works are too insignificant to render Godgracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us forChrist's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, anddoes not say that by our works we merit, etc. ] And here to bejustified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wickedman, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also inthe 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 believeconcerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and notby faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainlypronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saintsare righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commendsonly such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says ofAbraham, 2, 21: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it issaid: The doers of the Law are justified, i. E. , they are pronouncedrighteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have goodfruits which please Him on account of faith, and accordingly, are thefulfilment of the Law. These things, simply spoken, contain nothingerroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries who attach tothem godless opinions out of their mind. For it does not followhence that works merit the remission of sins; that works regeneratehearts; that works are a propitiation, that works please withoutChrist as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator. James says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, theadversaries 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 itnot to deal thy bread to the hungry?... Then shalt thou call, and theLord will answer. Dan. 4, 24 [27]: Break off thy sins, by showingmercy to the poor. Matt. 5, 3: Blessed are the poor in spirit; fortheirs is the kingdom of heaven; and v. 7: Blessed are the merciful;for they shall obtain mercy. Even these passages would containnothing contrary to us if the adversaries would not falsely attachsomething to them. For they contain two things: The one is apreaching either of the Law or of repentance, which not only convictsthose doing wrong, but also enjoins them to do what is right; theother is a promise which is added. But it is not added that sins areremitted without faith, or that works themselves are a propitiation. Moreover, in the preaching of the Law these two things ought alwaysto be understood, namely: First, that the Law cannot be observedunless we have been regenerated by faith in Christ, just as Christsays, John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing. Secondly, and thoughsome external works can certainly be done, this general judgment:Without faith it is impossible to please God, which interprets thewhole Law, must be retained: and the Gospel must be retained, thatthrough 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 ofthe Law alone would be sufficient? Thus in the preaching ofrepentance, 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 isclearly promised. Accordingly, the Gospel must be added, that forChrist's sake sins are remitted, and that we obtain remission of sinsby faith in Christ. If the adversaries exclude the Gospel of Christfrom the preaching of repentance, they are judged aright to beblasphemers against Christ. 

Therefore, when Isaiah, 1, 16. 18, preaches repentance: Cease to doevil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judgethe fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now and let us reasontogether, saith the Lord; though your sine be as scarlet, they shallbe white as snow, the prophet thus both exhorts to repentance, andadds the promise. But it would be foolish to consider in such asentence only the words: Relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless. For he says in the beginning: Cease to do evil, where he censuresimpiety of heart and requires faith. Neither does the prophet saythat through the works: Relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, they can merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, but hecommands such works as are necessary in the new life. Yet, in themean time, he means that remission of sins is received by faith, andaccordingly the promise is added. Thus we must understand allsimilar 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 workof ours we merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, as theyterm it, but He requires a new life, which certainly is necessary. Yet, in the mean time He means that remission of sins is received byfaith. Thus, when Isaiah says, 58, 7: Deal thy bread to the hungry, he requires a new life. Nor does the prophet speak of this workalone, but, as the text indicates, of the entire repentance; yet, inthe mean time, he intends that remission of sins is received by faith. For the position is sure, and none of the gates of hell canoverthrow it, that in the preaching of repentance the preaching ofthe Law is not sufficient, because the Law works wrath and alwaysaccuses. But the preaching of the Gospel should be added, namely, that in this way remission of sins is granted us, if we believe thatsins are remitted us for Christ's sake. Otherwise, why would therebe need of the Gospel, why would there be need of Christ? Thisbelief ought always to be in view, in order that it may be opposed tothose who, Christ being cast aside and the Gospel being blotted out, wickedly distort the Scriptures to the human opinions, that by ourworks we purchase remission of sins. 

Thus also in the sermon of Daniel, 4, 24, faith is required. [Thewords of the prophet which were full of faith and spirit, we must notregard as heathenish as those of Aristotle or any other heathen. Aristotle also admonished Alexander that he should not use his powerfor his own wantonness, but for the improvement of countries and men. This was written correctly and well; concerning the office of kingnothing better can be preached or written. But Daniel is speaking tohis king, not only concerning his office as king, but concerningrepentance, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to God, andconcerning sublime, great, spiritual subjects, which far transcendhuman thoughts and works. ] For Daniel did not mean that the kingshould only bestow alms [which even a hypocrite can do], but embracesrepentance when he says: Break off [Redeem, Vulg. ] thy iniquities byshowing mercy to the poor, i. E. Break off thy sins by a change ofheart and works. But here also faith is required. And Danielproclaims to him many things concerning the worship of the only God, the God of Israel, and converts the king not only to bestow alms, butmuch more to faith. For we have the excellent confession of the kingconcerning the God of Israel: There is no other God that can deliverafter this sort Dan. 3, 29. Therefore, in the sermon of Daniel thereare two parts. The one part is that which gives commandmentconcerning the new life and the works of the new life. The otherpart is, that Daniel promises to the king the remission of sins. [Now, where there is a promise, faith is required. For the promisecannot be received in any other way than by the heart's relying onsuch word of God, and not regarding its own worthiness orunworthiness. Accordingly, Daniel also demands faith: for thus thepromise reads: There will be healing for thy offenses. ] And thispromise of the remission of sins is not a preaching of the Law, but atruly prophetical and evangelical voice, of which Daniel certainlymeant that it should be received in faith. For Daniel knew that theremission of sins in Christ was promised not only to the Israelites, but also to all nations. Otherwise he could not have promised to theking the remission of sins. For it is not in the power of manespecially amid the terrors of sin, to assert without a sure word ofGod concerning God's will, that He ceases to be angry. And the wordsof Daniel speak in his own language still more clearly of repentanceand still more clearly bring out the promise. Redeem thy sins byrighteousness and thy iniquities by favors toward the poor. Thesewords teach concerning the whole of repentance. [It is as much as tosay: Amend your life! And it is true, when we amend our lives, webecome rid of sin. ] For they direct him to become righteous, then todo good works, to defend the miserable against injustice, as was theduty of a king. But righteousness is faith in the heart. Moreover, sins are redeemed by repentance, i. E. The obligation or guilt isremoved, because God forgives those who repent, as it is written inEzek. 18, 21. 22. Nor are we to infer from this that He forgives onaccount of works that follow, on account of alms, but on account ofHis promise He forgives those who apprehend His promise. Neither doany apprehend His promise, except those who truly believe, and byfaith overcome sin and death. These, being regenerated, ought tobring forth fruits worthy of repentance, just as John says, Matt. 3, 8. The promise, therefore, was added: So, there will be healing forthy offenses, Dan. 4, 24. [Daniel does not only demand works, butsays: Redeem thy sins by righteousness. Now, everybody knows that inScripture righteousness does not mean only external works, butembraces faith, as Paul says: _Iustus ex fide vivet_? The just shalllive by his faith, Heb. 10, 38. Hence, Daniel first demands faithwhen he mentions righteousness and says: Redeem thy sins byrighteousness, that is, by faith toward God, by which thou art maderighteous. In addition to this do good works, administer your office, do not be a tyrant, but see that your government be profitable toyour country and people, preserve peace, and protect the poor againstunjust force. These are princely alms. ] Jerome here added a particleexpressing doubt, that is beside the matter, and in his commentariescontends much more unwisely that the remission of sins is uncertain. But let us remember that the Gospel gives a sure promise of theremission of sins. And to deny that there must be a sure promise ofthe remission of sins would completely abolish the Gospel. Let ustherefore dismiss Jerome concerning this passage. Although thepromise is displayed even in the word redeem. For it signifies thatthe remission of sins is possible that sins can be redeemed, i. E. , that their obligation or guilt can be removed, or the wrath of Godappeased. But our adversaries, overlooking the promises, everywhere, consider only the precepts, and attach falsely the human opinion thatremission occurs on account of works, although the text does not saythis, but much rather requires faith. For wherever a promise is, there faith is required. For a promise cannot be received unless byfaith. [The same answer must also be given in reference to thepassage from the Gospel: Forgive, and you will be forgiven. For thisis just such a doctrine of repentance. The first part in thispassage demands amendment of life and good works, the other part addsthe promise. Nor are we to infer from this that our forgiving meritsfor us _ex opere operato_ remission of sin. For that is not whatChrist says, but as in other sacraments Christ has attached thepromise to an external sign, so He attaches the promise of theforgiveness of sin in this place to external good works. And as inthe Lord's Supper we do not obtain forgiveness of sin without faith, _ex opere operato_, so neither in this when we forgive. For, ourforgiving is not a good work, except it is performed by a personwhose sins have been previously forgiven by God in Christ. If, therefore, our forgiving is to please God, it must follow after theforgiveness which God extends to us. For, as a rule, Christ combinesthese two, the Law and the Gospel, both faith and good works, inorder to indicate that, where good works do not follow, there is nofaith either that we may have external marks, which remind us of theGospel and the forgiveness of sin, for our comfort and that thus ourfaith may be exercised in many ways. In this manner we are tounderstand such passages, otherwise they would directly contradictthe entire Gospel, and our beggarly works would be put in the placeof Christ, who alone is to be the propitiation, which no man is byany means to despise. Again, if these passages were to be understoodas 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 naturallyadmires these, and because it sees only works, and does notunderstand or consider faith, it dreams accordingly that these worksmerit remission of sins and justify. This opinion of the Law inheresby nature in men's minds; neither can it be expelled, unless when weare divinely taught. But the mind must be recalled from such carnalopinions to the Word of God. We see that the Gospel and the promiseconcerning Christ have been laid before us. When, therefore, the Lawis preached, when works are enjoined, we should not spurn the promiseconcerning Christ. But the latter must first be apprehended, inorder that we may be able to produce good works, and our works mayplease God, as Christ says, John 16; 5: With out Me ye can do nothing. Therefore, if Daniel would have used such words as these: "Redeemyour sins by repentance, " the adversaries would take no notice ofthis passage. Now, since he has actually expressed this thought inapparently other words, the adversaries distort his words to theinjury of the doctrine of grace and faith, although Daniel meant mostespecially to include faith. Thus, therefore, we reply to the wordsof Daniel, that, inasmuch as he is preaching repentance, he isteaching not only of works, but also of faith, as the narrativeitself in the context testifies. Secondly, because Daniel clearlypresents the promise, he necessarily requires faith which believesthat sins are freely remitted by God. Although, therefore, inrepentance he mentions works, yet Daniel does not say that by theseworks we merit remission of sins. For Daniel speaks not only of theremission of the punishment; because remission of the punishment issought for in vain unless the heart first receive the remission ofguilt. Besides, if the adversaries understand Daniel as speakingonly of the remission of punishment, this passage will prove nothingagainst us, because it will thus be necessary for even them toconfess that the remission of sin and free justification precede. Afterwards even we concede that the punishments by which we arechastised, are mitigated by our prayers and good works, and finallyby our entire repentance, according to 1 Cor. 11, 31: For if we wouldjudge ourselves, we should not be judged. And Jer. 15, 19: If thoureturn, then will I bring thee again. And Zech. 1, 3: Turn ye untoMe, and I will turn unto you. And Ps. 50, 15: Call upon Me in theday of trouble. 

Let us, therefore, in all our encomiums upon works and in thepreaching of the Law retain this rule: that the Law is not observedwithout 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 notintended to remove the Gospel, and to remove Christ as Propitiator. And let the Pharisees, our adversaries, be cursed, who so interpretthe Law as to ascribe the glory of Christ to works namely, that theyare a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins. Itfollows, therefore, that works are always thus praised, namely, thatthey are pleasing on account of faith, as works do not please withoutChrist as Propitiator. By Him we have access to God, Rom. 5, 2, notby works, without Christ as Mediator. Therefore, when it is said, Matt. 19, 17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, wemust believe that without Christ the commandments are not kept, andwithout Him cannot please. Thus in the Decalog itself, in the FirstCommandment Ex. 20, 6: Showing mercy unto thousands of them that loveMe and keep My commandments, the most liberal promise of the Law isadded. But this Law is not observed without Christ. For it alwaysaccuses the conscience which does not satisfy the Law, and thereforein 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, Christis apprehended as Mediator, the heart finds rest, and begins to loveGod and observe the Law, and knows that now, because of Christ asMediator, it is pleasing to God, even though the inchoate fulfillingof the Law be far from perfection and be very impure. Thus we mustjudge also concerning the preaching of repentance. For although inthe doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at allconcerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so madas to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel. And absolutionought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer theterrified conscience. 

Therefore the doctrine of repentance, because it not only commandsnew works, but also promises the remission of sins, necessarilyrequires faith. For the remission of sins is not received unless byfaith. Therefore, in those passages that refer to repentance, weshould always understand that not only works, but also faith isrequired, 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 notoccur on account of the work, but through faith, on account of Christ. Just as Scripture testifies in many passages: Acts 10, 43: To Himgive all the prophets witness that through His name, whosoeverbelieveth 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 wehave redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins. Althoughwhat need is there to recite testimonies? This is the very voicepeculiar to the Gospel, namely, that for Christ's sake, and not forthe sake of our works, we obtain by faith remission of sins. Ouradversaries endeavor to suppress this voice of the Gospel by means ofdistorted passages which contain the doctrine of the Law, or of works. For it is true that in the doctrine of repentance works arerequired, because certainly a new life is required. But here theadversaries wrongly add that by such works we merit the remission ofsins, or justification. And yet Christ often connects the promise ofthe remission of sins to good works not because He means that goodworks are a propitiation, for they follow reconciliation; but for tworeasons. One is, because good fruits must necessarily follow. Therefore He reminds us that, if good fruits do not follow therepentance is hypocritical and feigned. The other reason is, becausewe have need of external signs of so great a promise, because aconscience full of fear has need of manifold consolation. As, therefore, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs that continuallyadmonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the morefirmly that their sins are forgiven, so the same promise is writtenand portrayed in good works, in order that these works may admonishus to believe the more firmly. And those who produce no good worksdo not excite themselves to believe, but despise these promises. Thegodly on the other hand, embrace them, and rejoice that they have thesigns and testimonies of so great a promise. Accordingly, theyexercise 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 opereoperato_. 

So also the address of Tobias, 4, 11, ought to be received: Alms freefrom every sin and from death. We will not say that this ishyperbole, although it ought thus to be received, so as not todetract from the praise of Christ, whose prerogative it is to freefrom sin and death. But we must come back to the rule that withoutChrist the doctrine of the Law is of no profit. Therefore those almsplease God which follow reconciliation or justification, and notthose which precede. Therefore they free from sin and death, not _exopere operato_, but, as we have said above concerning repentance, that we ought to embrace faith and its fruits, so here we must sayconcerning alms that this entire newness of life saves [that theyplease God because they occur in believers]. Alms also are theexercises of faith, which receives the remission of sins andovercomes death, while it exercises itself more and more, and inthese exercises receives strength. We grant also this, that almsmerit many favors from God [but they cannot overcome death, hell, thedevil, sins, and give the conscience peace (for this must occur alonethrough faith in Christ)], mitigate punishments, and that they meritour defense in the dangers of sins and of death, as we have said alittle before concerning the entire repentance. [This is the simplemeaning, which agrees also with other passages of Scripture. Forwherever in the Scriptures good works are praised, we must alwaysunderstand them according to the rule of Paul, that the Law and worksmust not be elevated above Christ, but that Christ and faith are asfar above all works as the heavens are above the earth. ] And theaddress of Tobias, regarded as a whole shows that faith is requiredbefore alms, 4, 5: Be mindful of the Lord, thy God, all thy days Andafterwards, v. 19. Bless the Lord, thy God, always, and desire of Himthat thy ways be directed. This, however, belongs properly to thatfaith of which we speak, which believes that God is reconciled to itbecause of His mercy, and which wishes to be justified, sanctified, and governed by God. But our adversaries, charming men, pick outmutilated 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 commonprecept, it is unbecoming, before the entire Law is thoroughlyexamined, to judge or reply when any single clause of it is presented. And passages, when produced in their entirety, very frequentlybring the interpretation with them. 

Luke 11, 41 is also cited in a mutilated form, namely: Give alms ofsuch 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 saidthat to the preaching of the Law there should be added the Gospelconcerning Christ, because of whom good works are pleasing, but theyeverywhere teach [without shame] that, Christ being excluded, justification is merited by the works of the Law. When this passageis produced unmutilated, it will show that faith is required. Christrebukes 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, andcleansings of the body, of vessels, of garments]. Just as some Popeor other says of the water sprinkled with salt that it sanctifies andcleanses the people; and the gloss says that it cleanses from venialsins. Such also were the opinions of the Pharisees which Christreproved, and to this feigned cleansing He opposes a double cleanness, the one internal, the other external. He bids them be cleansedinwardly [(which occurs only through faith)], and adds concerning theoutward cleanness: Give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. The adversaries do not apply arightthe universal particle all things; for Christ adds this conclusion toboth members: "All things will be clean unto you, if you will beclean within, and will outwardly give alms. " For He indicates thatoutward cleanness is to be referred to works commanded by God, andnot to human traditions, such as the ablutions were at that time, andthe daily sprinkling of water, the vesture of monks, the distinctionsof food, and similar acts of ostentation are now. But theadversaries distort the meaning by sophistically transferring theuniversal particle to only one part: "All things will be clean tothose having given alms. " [As if any one would infer: Andrew ispresent; therefore all the apostles are present. Wherefore in theantecedent 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 bothparts are combined, believing and giving alms, it follows rightlythat all things are clean: the heart by faith, the externalconversation by good works. Thus we must combine the entire sermon, and not invert the parts, and interpret the text to mean that theheart is cleansed from sin by alms. Moreover, there are some whothink that these words were spoken by Christ against the Phariseesironically, 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 thatChrist would in a somewhat sarcastic and mocking way puncture theirpharisaical 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 entirepassage is examined, it presents a meaning harmonizing with the restof Scripture, that, if the hearts are cleansed and then outwardlyalms are added, i. E. , all the works of love, they are thus entirelyclean i. E. Not only within, but also without. And why is not theentire discourse added to it? There are many parts of the reproof, some of which give commandment concerning faith and others concerningworks. Nor is it the part of a candid reader to pick out thecommands concerning works, while the passages concerning faith areomitted. 

Lastly, readers are to be admonished of this, namely, that theadversaries give the worst advice to godly consciences when theyteach that by works the remission of sins is merited, becauseconscience, in acquiring remission through works, cannot be confidentthat the work will satisfy God. Accordingly, it is always tormented, and continually devises other works and other acts of worship untilit altogether despairs. This course is described by Paul, Rom. 4, 6, where he proves that the promise of righteousness is not obtainedbecause of our works, because we could never affirm that we had areconciled God. For the Law always accuses. Thus the promise wouldbe in vain and uncertain. He accordingly concludes that this promiseof the remission of sins and of righteousness is received by faith, not on account of works. This is the true, simple, and genuinemeaning of Paul, in which the greatest consolation is offered godlyconsciences, and the glory of Christ is shown forth, who certainlywas given to us for this purpose, namely, that through Him we mighthave grace, righteousness, and peace. 

Thus far we have reviewed the principal passages which theadversaries cite against us, in order to show that faith does notjustify, and that we merit, by our works, remission of sins and grace. But we hope that we have shown clearly enough to godly consciencesthat these passages are not opposed to our doctrine; that theadversaries wickedly distort the Scriptures to their opinions; thatthe most of the passages which they cite have been garbled; that, while omitting the clearest passages concerning faith, they onlyselect from the Scriptures passages concerning works, and even thesethey distort; that everywhere they add certain human opinions to thatwhich the words of Scripture say; that they teach the Law in such amanner as to suppress the Gospel concerning Christ. For the entiredoctrine of the adversaries is, in part, derived from human reason, and is, in part, a doctrine of the Law, not of the Gospel. For theyteach two modes of justification, of which the one has been derivedfrom reason and the other from the Law, not from the Gospel, or thepromise concerning Christ. 

The former mode of justification with them is, that they teach thatby good works men merit grace both _de congruo and de condigno_. This mode is a doctrine of reason, because reason, not seeing theuncleanness of the heart, thinks that it pleases God if it performgood works, and for this reason other works and other acts of worshipare constantly devised, by men in great peril, against the terrors ofconscience. The heathen and the Israelites slew human victims, andundertook many other most painful works in order to appease God'swrath. Afterwards, orders of monks were devised, and these vied witheach other in the severity of their observances against the terrorsof conscience and God's wrath. And this mode of justification, because it is according to reason, and is altogether occupied withoutward works, can be understood, and to a certain extent be rendered. And to this the canonists have distorted the misunderstood Churchordinances, which were enacted by the Fathers for a far differentpurpose, namely, not that by these works we should seek afterrighteousness, but that, for the sake of mutual tranquillity amongmen, there might be a certain order in the Church. In this mannerthey also distorted the Sacraments and most especially the Mass, through which they seek _ex opere operato_ righteousness, grace, andsalvation. 

Part 9

Another mode of justification is handed down by the scholastictheologians when they teach that we are righteous through a habitinfused by God, which is love, and that, aided by this habit, weobserve the Law of God outwardly and inwardly and that thisfulfilling of the Law is worthy of grace and of eternal life. Thisdoctrine is plainly the doctrine of the Law. For that is true whichthe Law says: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, etc. , Deut. 6, 5. Thou shalt love thy neighbor Lev. 19, 18. Love is, therefore, thefulfilling 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 forsin, the impiety is manifest. The latter mode contains much that isinjurious. It does not teach that, when we are born again, we availourselves of Christ. It does not teach that justification is theremission of sins. It does not teach that we attain the remission ofsins before we love but falsely represents that we rouse in ourselvesthe act of love, through which we merit remission of sins. Nor doesit teach that by faith in Christ we overcome the terrors of sin anddeath. It falsely represents that, by their own fulfilling of theLaw, without Christ as Propitiator, men come to God. Finally, itrepresents that this very fulfilling of the Law, without Christ asPropitiator, is righteousness worthy of grace and eternal life, whilenevertheless scarcely a weak and feeble fulfilling of the Law occurseven in saints. 

But if any one will only reflect upon it that the Gospel has not beengiven in vain to the world, and that Christ has not been promised, set forth, has not been born, has not suffered, has not risen againin vain, he will most readily understand that we are justified notfrom reason or from the Law. In regard to justification, wetherefore are compelled to dissent from the adversaries. For theGospel shows another mode; the Gospel compels us to avail ourselvesof Christ in justification, it teaches that through Him we haveaccess to God by faith; it teaches that we ought to set Him asMediator and Propitiator against God's wrath; it teaches that byfaith in Christ the remission of sins and reconciliation are received, and the terrors of sin and of death overcome. Thus Paul also saysthat righteousness is not of the Law, but of the promise, in whichthe Father has promised that He wishes to forgive, that for Christ'ssake He wishes to be reconciled. This promise, however, is receivedby faith alone, as Paul testifies, Rom. 4, 13. This faith alonereceives remission of sins, justifies, and regenerates. Then loveand other good fruits follow. Thus, therefore, we teach that man isjustified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by thepreaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ'ssake it has a reconciled God. This faith is counted forrighteousness before God, Rom. 4, 3. 5. And when in this manner theheart 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 areable to love God and the Word of God, and to be submissive to God inafflictions, so that we are able to be chaste, to love our neighbor, etc. Even though these works are as yet far distant from theperfection of the Law, yet they please on account of faith, by whichwe are accounted righteous, because we believe that for Christ's sakewe have a reconciled God. These things are plain and in harmony withthe Gospel, and can be understood by persons of sound mind. And fromthis foundation it can easily be decided why we ascribe justificationto faith, and not to love; although love follows faith, because loveis the fulfilling of the Law. But Paul teaches that we are justifiednot from the Law, but from the promise which is received only byfaith. For we neither come to God without Christ as Mediator, norreceive remission of sins for the sake of our love, but for the sakeof 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 forChrist's sake the Father is reconciled and forgives. Afterwards webegin to observe the Law. Our eyes are to be cast far away fromhuman reason, far away from Moses upon Christ, and we are to believethat Christ is given us, in order that for His sake we may beaccounted righteous. In the flesh we never satisfy the Law. Thus, therefore, we are accounted righteous, not on account of the Law buton account of Christ because His merits are granted us, if we believeon Him. If any one, therefore, has considered these foundations, that we are not justified by the Law because human nature cannotobserve the Law of God and cannot love God, but that we are justifiedfrom the promise, in which, for Christ's sake, reconciliation, righteousness, and eternal life have been promised, he will easilyunderstand that justification must necessarily be ascribed to faith, if he only will reflect upon the fact that it is not in vain thatChrist has been promised and set forth, that He has been born and hassuffered and been raised again; if he will reflect upon the fact thatthe promise of grace in Christ is not in vain, that it was madeimmediately from the beginning of the world apart from and beyond theLaw; if he will reflect upon the fact that the promise should bereceived by faith, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10 sq. : He that believethnot God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the recordthat God gave of His Son. And this is the record that God hath givento us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath theSon 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 youfree, ye shall be free indeed. And Paul, Rom. 5, 2: By whom also wehave access to God; and he adds: by faith. By faith in Christ, therefore, the promise of remission of sins and of righteousness isreceived. Neither are we justified before God by reason or by theLaw. 

These things are so plain and so manifest that we wonder that themadness of the adversaries is so great as to call them into doubt. The proof is manifest that, since we are justified before God notfrom the Law but from the promise, it is necessary to ascribejustification to faith. What can be opposed to this proof, unlesssome one wish to abolish the entire Gospel and the entire Christ?The glory of Christ becomes more brilliant when we teach that weavail ourselves of Him as Mediator and Propitiator. Godlyconsciences see that in this doctrine the most abundant consolationis offered to them, namely, that they ought to believe and mostfirmly 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 suchgreat blessings as these the adversaries deprive the Church when theycondemn and endeavor to efface, the doctrine concerning therighteousness of faith. Therefore let all well-disposed minds bewareof consenting to the godless counsels of the adversaries. In thedoctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention ismade 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 areleft in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have areconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observethe Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciledGod, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversariesacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and muchmore frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment ofGod, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, withtroubles 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? Whatelse is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? And letany one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerningthis love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understandwhat they say they only echo, just like the walls of a house, thelittle word "love, " without understanding it. So confused andobscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christto human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption orto 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 devilsbelieve, we have frequently already said that we speak of faith inChrist, i. E. , of faith in the remission of sins, of faith which trulyand heartily assents to the promise of grace. This is not broughtabout without a great struggle in human hearts. And men of soundmind can easily judge that the faith which believes that we are caredfor by God, and that we are forgiven and heard by Him, is a matterabove nature. For of its own accord the human mind makes no suchdecision concerning God. Therefore this faith of which we speak isneither 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 theintellect, the reply is easy, because in the schools even suchpersons acknowledge that the will commands the intellect to assent tothe Word of God. We say also quite clearly: Just as the terrors ofsin and death are not only thoughts of the intellect, but alsohorrible movements of the will fleeing God's judgment, so faith isnot 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 thepromise, namely, reconciliation and remission of sins. Scripturethus uses the term "faith, " as the following sentence of Paultestifies, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace withGod. Moreover, in this passage, to justify signifies, according toforensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, buton account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, whichrighteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. Therefore, since in this passage our righteousness is the imputation of therighteousness of another, we must here speak concerning righteousnessotherwise than when in philosophy or in a civil court we seek afterthe 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, andSanctification, and Redemption. And 2 Cor. 5, 21: He hath mode Himto be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made therighteousness of God in Him. But because the righteousness of Christis given us by faith, faith is for this reason righteousness in usimputatively, i. E. , it is that by which we are made acceptable to Godon account of the imputation and ordinance of God, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 3. 5: Faith is reckoned for righteousness. Although on account ofcertain captious persons we must say technically: Faith is trulyrighteousness, because it is obedience to the Gospel. For it isevident that obedience to the command of a superior is truly aspecies of distributive justice. And this obedience to the Gospel isreckoned for righteousness, so that, only on account of this, becauseby this we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, good works, or obedienceto the Law, are pleasing. For we do not satisfy the Law, but forChrist's sake this is forgiven us, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There istherefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. This faith gives God the honor, gives God that which is His own, inthis, that, by receiving the promises, it obeys Him. Just as Paulalso says, Rom. 4, 20: He staggered not at the promise of God throughunbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. Thus theworship and divine service of the Gospel is to receive from God gifts, on the contrary, the worship of the Law is to offer and present ourgifts to God. We can, however, offer nothing to God unless we havefirst been reconciled and born again. This passage too, brings thegreatest consolation, as the chief worship of the Gospel is to wishto receive remission of sins, grace, and righteousness. Of thisworship Christ says, John 6, 40: This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may haveeverlasting life. And the Father says, Matt. 17, 5: This is Mybeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him. The adversariesspeak of obedience to the Law; they do not speak of obedience to theGospel, and yet we cannot obey the Law, unless, through the Gospel, we have been born again, since we cannot love God, unless theremission of sins has been received. For as long as we feel that Heis angry with us, human nature flees from His wrath and judgment. Ifany one should make a cavil such as this: If that be faith whichwishes those things that are offered in the promise, the habits offaith and hope seem to be confounded, because hope is that whichexpects promised things, to this we reply that these dispositionscannot in reality be severed, in the manner that they are divided byidle speculations in the schools. For also in the Epistle to theHebrews faith is defined as the substance (_exspectatio_) of thingshoped for, Heb. 11, 1. Yet if any one wish a distinction to be made, we say that the object of hope is properly a future event, but thatfaith is concerned with future and present things, and receives inthe present the remission of sins offered in the promise. 

From these statements we hope that it can be sufficiently understoodboth what faith is and that we are compelled to hold that by faith weare justified, reconciled, and regenerated, if, indeed, we wish toteach the righteousness of the Gospel, and not the righteousness ofthe Law. For those who teach that we are justified by love teach therighteousness of the Law, and do not teach us in justification toavail ourselves of Christ as Mediator. These things also aremanifest namely, that not by love, but by faith, we overcome theterrors of sin and death, that we cannot oppose our love andfulfilling of the Law to the wrath of God, because Paul says, Rom. 5, 2: By Christ we have access to God by faith. We urge this sentenceso frequently for the sake of perspicuity. For it shows most clearlythe state of our whole case, and, when carefully considered, canteach abundantly concerning the whole matter, and can consolewell-disposed minds. Accordingly, it is of advantage to have it athand and in sight, not only that we may be able to oppose it to thedoctrine of our adversaries, who teach that we come to God not byfaith, but by love and merits, without Christ as Mediator; and also, at the same time that, when in fear, we may cheer ourselves andexercise faith. This is also manifest, that without the aid ofChrist we cannot observe the Law, as He Himself says John 15, 5:Without Me ye can do nothing. Accordingly, before we observe the Law, our hearts must be born again by faith. [From the explanationswhich we have made it can easily be inferred what answer must begiven to similar quotations. For the rule so interprets all passagesthat treat of good works that outside of Christ they are to beworthless before God, and that the heart must first have Christ, andbelieve that it is accepted with God for Christ's sake, not becauseof its own works. The adversaries also bring forward some argumentsof the schools, which are easily answered, if you know what faith is. Tried Christians speak of faith quite differently from the sophists, for we have shown before that to believe means to rely on the mercyof God, that He desires to be gracious for Christ's sake, without ourmerits. That is what it means to believe the article of theforgiveness of sin. To believe this does not mean to know thehistory only, which the devils also know. Therefore we can easilymeet the argument of the schools when they say that the devils alsobelieve, therefore faith does not justify. Aye, the devils know thehistory, but they do not believe the forgiveness of sin. Again, theysay: To be righteous is to be obedient. Now, to perform works iscertainly obedience; therefore works must justify. We should answerthis as follows: To be righteous is a kind of obedience which Godaccepts as such. Now God is not willing to accept our obedience inworks as righteousness; for it is not an obedience of the heart, because none truly keep the Law. For this reason He has ordainedthat there should be another kind of obedience which He will acceptas righteousness, namely, that we are to acknowledge our disobedience, and trust that we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, not onaccount of our obedience. Accordingly, to be righteous in this casemeans to be pleasing to God, not on account of our own obedience, butfrom mercy for Christ's sake. Again, to sin is to hate God;therefore, to love God must be righteousness. True, to love God isthe righteousness of the Law. But nobody fulfils this Law. Therefore the Gospel teaches a new kind of righteousness, namely, that we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, although we have notfulfilled the Law; and yet, we are to begin to do the Law. Again, what is the difference between faith and hope? Answer: Hope expectsfuture blessings and deliverance from tribulation; faith receives thepresent reconciliation, and concludes in the heart that God hasforgiven my sin, and that He is now gracious to me. And this is anoble service of God, which serves God by giving Him the honor, andby esteeming His mercy and promise so sure that without merit we canreceive and expect from Him all manner of blessings. And in thisservice of God the heart should be exercised and increase, of whichthe foolish sophists know nothing. ]

Hence it can also be understood why we find fault with the doctrineof the adversaries concerning _meritum condigni_. The decision isvery easy: because they do not make mention of faith, that we pleaseGod by faith for Christ's sake, but imagine that good works, wroughtby the aid of the habit of love, constitute a righteousness worthy byitself to please God, and worthy of eternal life, and that they haveno need of Christ as Mediator. [This can in no wise be tolerated. ]What else is this than to transfer the glory of Christ to our works, namely that we please God because of our works, and not because ofChrist? But this is also to rob Christ of the glory of being theMediator who is Mediator perpetually, and not merely in the beginningof Justification. Paul also says, Gal. 2, 17, that If one justifiedin Christ have need afterwards to seek righteousness elsewhere, heaffirms of Christ that He is a minister of sin, i. E. , that He doesnot fully justify. [And this is what the holy, catholic, ChristianChurch teaches, preaches, and confesses, namely, that we are saved bymercy as we have shown above from Jerome. ] And most absurd is thatwhich the adversaries teach, namely, that good works merit _grace decondigno_, as though indeed after the beginning of justification, ifconscience is terrified, as is ordinarily the case, grace must besought through a good work, and not by faith in Christ. 

Secondly, the doctrine of the adversaries leaves consciences in doubt, so that they never can be pacified, because the Law always accusesus, even in good works. For always the flesh lusteth against theSpirit, Gal. 5, 17. How, therefore, will conscience here have peacewithout faith, if it believe that, not for Christ's sake, but for thesake of one's own work, it ought now to please God? What work willit find, upon what will it firmly rely as worthy of eternal life, if, indeed, hope ought to originate from merits? Against these doubtsPaul says, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace withGod; we ought to be firmly convinced that for Christ's sakerighteousness and eternal life are granted us. And of Abraham hesays Rom. 4, 18: Against hope he believed in hope. 

Thirdly, how will conscience know when by the inclination of thishabit of love, a work has been done of which it may affirm that itmerits _grace de condigno_? But it is only to elude the Scripturesthat this very distinction has been devised, namely, that men meritat one time _de congruo_ and at another time _de condigno_, because, as we have above said, the intention of the one who works does notdistinguish the kinds of merit; but hypocrites, in their security, think simply their works are worthy, and that for this reason theyare accounted righteous. On the other hand, terrified consciencesdoubt concerning all works, and for this reason are continuallyseeking other works. For this is what it means to _merit de congruo_, namely to doubt and, without faith, to work, until despair takesplace. In a word, all that the adversaries teach in regard to thismatter is full of errors and dangers. 

Fourthly, the entire [the holy, catholic, Christian] Church confessesthat eternal life is attained through mercy. For thus Augustinespeaks On Grace and Free Will, when indeed, he is speaking of theworks of the saints wrought after justification: God leads us toeternal life not by our merits, but according to His mercy. AndConfessions, Book IX: Woe to the life of man, however much it may beworthy of praise, if it be judged with mercy removed. And Cyprian inhis treatise on the Lord's Prayer: Lest any one should flatterhimself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself, should perishthe more deeply, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, inthat he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. But the subject iswell known, and has very many and very clear testimonies in Scripture, and in the Church Fathers, who all with one mouth declare that, eventhough we have good works yet in these very works we need mercy. Faith looking upon this mercy cheers and consoles us. Wherefore theadversaries teach erroneously when they so extol merits as to addnothing concerning this faith that apprehends mercy. For just as wehave above said that the promise and faith stand in a reciprocalrelation, and that the promise is not apprehended unless by faith, sowe here say that the promised mercy correlatively requires faith, andcannot be apprehended without faith. Therefore we justly find faultwith the doctrine concerning _meritum condigni_, since it teachesnothing of justifying faith, and obscures the glory and office ofChrist as Mediator. Nor should we be regarded as teaching anythingnew in this matter, since the Church Fathers have so clearly handeddown the doctrine that even in good works we need mercy. 

Scripture also often inculcates the same. In Ps. 143, 9: And enternot into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no manliving be justified. This passage denies absolutely, even to allsaints and servants of God, the glory of righteousness, if God doesnot forgive, but judges and convicts their hearts. For when Davidboasts in other places of his righteousness, he speaks concerning hisown cause against the persecutors of God's Word, he does not speak ofhis personal purity; and he asks that the cause and glory of God bedefended, as in Ps. 7, 8: Judge me, O Lord, according to Thyrighteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me. Likewise in Ps. 130, 3, he says that no one can endure God's judgment, if God were to mark our sins: If Thou, Lord, shouldest markiniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Job 9, 28: I am afraid of allmy sorrows [Vulg. , opera, works]; v. 30: If I wash myself withsnow-water, and make my hands never so clean, yet Thou shalt plungeme in the ditch. Prov. 20, 9: Who can say, I have made my heartclean, I am pure from my sin? 1 John 1, 8: If we say that we have nosin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, etc. And in theLord's Prayer the saints ask for the remission of sins. Thereforeeven the saints have sins. Num. 14, 18: The innocent shall not beinnocent [cf. Ex. 34, 7]. Deut. 4, 24: The Lord, thy God, is aconsuming fire. Zechariah also says, 2, 13: Be silent, O all flesh, before the Lord. Is. 40, 6: All flesh is as grass, and all thegoodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it, i. E. , flesh and righteousness of the flesh cannot endure the judgmentof God. Jonah also says, chap. 2, 8: They that observe lyingvanities forsake their own mercy, i. E. , all confidence is vain, except confidence in mercy; mercy delivers us; our own merits, ourown efforts, do not. Accordingly, Daniel also prays, 9, 18 sq. : Forwe do not present our supplications before Thee for ourrighteousnesses but for Thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do it; defer not for Thine own sake, Omy God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name. ThusDaniel teaches us in praying to lay hold upon mercy, i. E. , to trustin God's mercy, and not to trust in our own merits before God. Wealso wonder what our adversaries do in prayer, if, indeed, theprofane men ever ask anything of God. If they declare that they areworthy because they have love and good works, and ask for grace as adebt, they pray precisely like the Pharisee in Luke 18, 11, who says:I am not as other men are. He who thus prays for grace and does notrely upon God's mercy, treats Christ with dishonor, who, since He isour High Priest, intercedes for us. Thus, therefore, prayer reliesupon God's mercy, when we believe that we are heard for the sake ofChrist the High Priest, as He Himself says, John 14, 13: Whatsoeverye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you. In My name, He says, because without this High Priest we cannot approach theFather. 

[All prudent men will see what follows from the opinion of theadversaries. For if we shall believe that Christ has merited onlythe _prima gratia_, as they call it, and that we afterwards meriteternal life by our works, hearts or consciences will be pacifiedneither at the hour of death, nor at any other time, nor can theyever build upon certain ground; they are never certain that God isgracious. Thus their doctrine unintermittingly leads to nothing butmisery of soul and, finally, to despair. For God's Law is not amatter of pleasantry; it ceaselessly accuses consciences outside ofChrist, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. Thus itwill happen that if consciences feel the judgment of God, they haveno certain comfort and will rush into despair. 

Paul says: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14, 23. But thosepersons can do nothing from faith who are first to attain to thisthat God is gracious to them only when they have at length fulfilledthe Law. They will always quake with doubt whether they have doneenough good works, whether the Law has been satisfied, yea, they willkeenly feel and understand that they are still under obligation tothe Law. Accordingly, they will never be sure that they have agracious God, and that their prayer is heard. Therefore they cannever truly love God, nor expect any blessing from Him, nor trulyworship God. What else are such hearts and consciences than hellitself, since there is nothing in them but despair, fainting awaygrumbling, discontent, and hatred of God, and yet in this hatred theyinvoke and worship God, just as Saul worshiped Him

Here we appeal to all Christian minds and to all that are experiencedin trials; they will be forced to confess and say that such greatuncertainty, such disquietude, such torture and anxiety, suchhorrible fear and doubt follow from this teaching of the adversarieswho imagine that we are accounted righteous before God by our ownworks or fulfilling of the Law which we perform, and point us toQueer Street by bidding us trust not in the rich, blessed promises ofGrace, given us by Christ the Mediator, but in our own miserableworks! Therefore, this conclusion stands like a rock, yea, like awall, namely, that, although we have begun to do the Law, still weare accepted with God and at peace with Him, not on account of suchworks of ours, but for Christ's sake by faith; nor does God owe useverlasting life on account of these works. But just as forgivenessof sin and righteousness is imputed to us for Christ's sake, not onaccount of our works, or the Law, so everlasting life, together withrighteousness, is offered us, not on account of our works, or of theLaw, but for Christ's sake as Christ says, John 6, 40: This is theFather's will that sent He, that every one which seeth the Son, andbelieveth on Him may have everlasting life. Again, v. 47: He thatbelieveth on the Son hath everlasting life. Now, the adversariesshould be asked at this point what advice they give to poorconsciences in the hour of death: whether they comfort consciences bytelling them that they will have a blessed departure, that they willbe saved, and have a propitiated God, because of their own merits orbecause of God's grace and mercy for Christ's sake. For St. Peter St. Paul, and saints like them cannot boast that God owes them eternallife for their martyrdom, nor have they relied on their works, but onthe mercy promised in Christ. 

Nor would it be possible that a saint, great and high though he be, could make a firm stand against the accusations of the divine Law, the great might of the devil, the terror of death, and, finally, against despair and the anguish of hell, if he would not grasp thedivine promises, the Gospel, as a tree or branch in the great floodin the strong, violent stream, amidst the waves and billows of theanguish of death; if he does not cling by faith to the Word, whichproclaims grace, and thus obtains eternal life without works, withoutthe Law, from pure grace. For this doctrine alone preservesChristian consciences in afflictions and anguish of death. Of thesethings the adversaries know nothing, and talk of them like a blindman about color. 

Here they will say: If we are to be saved by pure mercy, whatdifference is there between those who are saved, and those who arenot saved? If merit is of no account, there is no difference betweenthe evil and the good and it follows that both are saved alike. Thisargument has moved the scholastics to invent the _meritum condigni_;for there must be (they think) a difference between those who aresaved and those who are damned. 

We reply; in the first place, that everlasting life is accorded tothose whom God esteems just, and when they have been esteemed just, they are become, by that act, the children of God and coheirs ofChrist, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He alsoglorified. Hence nobody is saved except only those who believe theGospel. But as our reconciliation with God is uncertain if it is torest on our works, and not on the gracious promise of God, whichcannot fail, so, too, all that we expect by hope would be uncertainif it must be built on the foundation of our merits and works. Forthe Law of God ceaselessly accuses the conscience and men feel intheir hearts nothing but this voice from the fiery, flaming cloud: Iam the Lord, thy God; this thou shalt do; that thou art obliged to do;this I require of thee. Deut. 5, 6 ff. No conscience can for amoment be at rest when the Law and Moses assails the heart, before itapprehends Christ by faith. Nor can it truly hope for eternal life, unless it be pacified before. For a doubting conscience flees fromGod, despairs and cannot hope. However, hope of eternal life must becertain. Now, in order that it may not be fickle, but certain, wemust believe that we have eternal life, not by our works or merits, but from pure grace, by faith in Christ. 

In secular affairs and in secular courts we meet with both, mercy andjustice. Justice is certain by the laws and the verdict rendered, mercy is uncertain. In this matter that relates to God the case isdifferent; for grace and mercy have been promised us by a certainword, and the Gospel is the word which commands us to believe thatGod is gracious and wishes to save us for Christ's sake, as the textreads, John 3, 17: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn theworld, but that the world through Him might be saved. He thatbelieveth on Him is not condemned. 

Now, whenever we speak of mercy, the meaning is to be this, thatfaith is required, and it is this faith that makes the differencebetween those who are saved, and those who are damned, between thosewho are worthy, and those who are unworthy. For everlasting life hasbeen promised to none but those who have been reconciled by Christ. Faith, however, reconciles and justifies before God the moment weapprehend the promise by faith. And throughout our entire life weare to pray God and be diligent, to receive faith and to grow infaith. For, as stated before, faith is where repentance is, and itis not in those who walk after the flesh. This faith is to grow andincrease throughout our life by all manner of afflictions. Those whoobtain faith are regenerated, so that they lead a new life and dogood works. 

Now, just as we say that true repentance is to endure throughout ourentire life, we say, too, that good works and the fruits of faithmust be done throughout our life, although our works never become soprecious as to be equal to the treasure of Christ, or to meriteternal life, as Christ says, Luke 17, 10: When ye shall have doneall those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitableservants. And St. Bernard truly says: There is need that you mustfirst believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sin except by thegrace of God; next, that thereafter you cannot have and do any goodwork unless God grants it to you; lastly, that you cannot earneternal life with your works, though it is not given you withoutmerit. A little further on he says: Let no one deceive himself; forwhen you rightly consider the matter, you will undoubtedly find thatyou cannot meet with ten thousand him who approaches you with twentythousand. These are strong sayings of St. Bernard; let them believethese if they will not believe us. 

In order, then, that hearts may have a true certain comfort and hope, we point them, with Paul, to the divine promise of grace in Christ, and teach that we must believe that God gives us eternal life, not onaccount of our works, but for Christ's sake, as the Apostle John saysin his Epistle, 1, 5, 12: He that hath the Son hath life, and he thathath not the Son of God hath not life. ]

Part 10

Here belongs also the declaration of Christ, Luke 17, 10: So likewiseye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants. These words clearly declare thatGod saves by mercy and on account of His promise, not that it is dueon account of the value of our works. But at this point theadversaries play wonderfully with the words of Christ. In the firstplace, they make an antistrophe and turn it against us. Much more, they say, can it be said: "If we have believed all things, say, Weare unprofitable servants. " Then they add that works are of no profitto God, but are not without profit to us. See how the puerile studyof sophistry delights the adversaries, and although these absurditiesdo not deserve a refutation, nevertheless we will reply to them in afew words. The antistrophe is defective. For, in the first place, the adversaries are deceived in regard to the term faith; because, ifit would signify that knowledge of the history which is also in thewicked and in devils, the adversaries would be correct in arguingthat faith is unprofitable when they say: "When we have believed allthings, say, We are unprofitable servants. " But we are speaking, notof the knowledge of the history, but of confidence in the promise andmercy of God. And this confidence in the promise confesses that weare unprofitable servants; yea, this confession that our works areunworthy is the very voice of faith, as appears in this example ofDaniel, 9, 18, which we cited a little above: We do not present oursupplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, etc. For faithsaves because it apprehends mercy, or the promise of grace, eventhough our works are unworthy; and, thus understood, namely that ourworks are unworthy, the antistrophe does not injure us: "When yeshall have believed all things, say, We are unprofitable servants";for that we are saved by mercy, we teach with the entire Church. Butif they mean to argue from the similar: When you have done all things, do not trust in your works, so also, when you have believed allthings, do not trust in the divine promise there is no connection. [The inference is wrong: "Works do not help; therefore, faith alsodoes not help. " We must give the uncultured men a homely illustration:It does not follow that because a half-farthing does not help, therefore a florin also does not help. Just as the florins is ofmuch higher denomination and value than the half-farthing, so alsoshould it be understood that faith is much higher and moreefficacious than works. Not that faith helps because of its worth, but because it trusts in God's promises and mercy. Faith is strong, not because of its worthiness, but because of the divine promise. ]For they are very dissimilar, as the causes and objects of confidencein the former proposition are far dissimilar to those of the latter. In the former, confidence is confidence in our own works. In thelatter, confidence is confidence in the divine promise. Christ, however, condemns confidence in our works; He does not condemnconfidence in His promise. He does not wish us to despair of God'sgrace and mercy. He accuses our works as unworthy, but does notaccuse the promise which freely offers mercy. And here Ambrose sayswell: grace is to be acknowledged; but nature must not be disregarded. We must trust in the promise of grace and not in our own nature. But the adversaries act in accordance with their custom, and distort, against faith, the judgments which have been given on behalf of faith. [Hence, Christ in this place forbids men to trust in their ownworks; for they cannot help them. On the other hand, He does notforbid to trust in God's promise. Yea, He requires such trust in thepromise of God for the very reason that we are unprofitable servantsand works can be of no help. Therefore, the knaves have improperlyapplied to our trust in the divine promise the words of Christ whichtreat of trust in our own worthiness. This clearly reveals anddefeats their sophistry. May the Lord Christ soon put to shame thesophists who thus mutilate His holy Word! Amen. ] We leave, however, these thorny points to the schools. The sophistry is plainly puerilewhen they interpret "unprofitable servant " as meaning that the worksare unprofitable to God, but are profitable to us. Yet Christ speaksconcerning that profit which makes God a debtor of grace to us, although it is out of place to discuss here concerning that which isprofitable or unprofitable. For "unprofitable servants" means"insufficient, " because no one fears God as much, and loves God asmuch, and believes God as much as he ought. But let us dismiss thesefrigid cavils of the adversaries, concerning which, if at any timethey are brought to the light, prudent men will easily decide whatthey should judge. They have found a flaw in words which are veryplain and clear. But every one sees that in this passage confidencein our own works is condemned. 

Let us, therefore, hold fast to this which the Church confesses, namely, that we are saved by mercy. And lest any one may here think:"If we are to be saved by mercy, hope will be uncertain, if in thosewho obtain salvation nothing precedes by which they may bedistinguished from those who do not obtain it, " we must give him asatisfactory answer. For the scholastics, moved by this reason, seemto have devised the _meritum condigni_. For this consideration cangreatly exercise the human mind. We will therefore reply briefly. For the very reason that hope may be sure, for the very reason thatthere may be an antecedent distinction between those who obtainsalvation, and those who do not obtain it, it is necessary firmly tohold that we are saved by mercy. When this is expressed thusunqualifiedly, it seems absurd. For in civil courts and in humanjudgment, that which is of right or of debt is certain, and mercy isuncertain. But the matter is different with respect to God'sjudgment; for here mercy has a clear and certain promise and commandfrom God. For the Gospel is properly that command which enjoins usto believe that God is propitious to us for Christ's sake. For Godsent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that theworld through Him might be saved, John 3, 17. 18. As often, therefore, as mercy is spoken of, faith in the promise must be added; and thisfaith produces sure hope, because it relies upon the Word and commandof God. If hope would rely upon works, then, indeed, it would beuncertain, because works cannot pacify the conscience, as has beensaid above frequently. And this faith makes a distinction betweenthose who obtain salvation, and those who do not obtain it. Faithmakes the distinction between the worthy and the unworthy, becauseeternal life has been promised to the justified; and faith justifies. 

But here again the adversaries will cry out that there is no need ofgood works if they do not merit eternal life. These calumnies wehave refuted above. Of course, it is necessary to do good works. Wesay that eternal life has been promised to the justified. But thosewho walk according to the flesh retain neither faith norrighteousness. We are for this very end justified, that, beingrighteous we may begin to do good works and to obey God's Law. Weare regenerated and receive the Holy Ghost for the very end that thenew life may produce new works, new dispositions, the fear and loveof God, hatred of concupiscence, etc. This faith of which we speakarises in repentance, and ought to be established and grow in themidst of good works, temptations, and dangers, so that we maycontinually be the more firmly persuaded that God for Christ's sakecares for us, forgives us, hears us. This is not learned with outmany and great struggles. How often is conscience aroused, how oftendoes it incite even to despair when it brings to view sins, eitherold or new, or the impurity of our nature! This handwriting is notblotted out without a great struggle, in which experience testifieswhat a difficult matter faith is. And while we are cheered in themidst of the terrors and receive consolation, other spiritualmovements at the same time grow, the knowledge of God, fear of God, hope, love of God; and we are regenerated, as Paul says, Col. 3, 10and 2 Cor. 3, 18, in the knowledge of God, and, beholding the gloryof the Lord, are changed into the same image, i. E. , we receive thetrue knowledge of God, so that we truly fear Him, truly trust that weare cared for and that we are heard by Him. This regeneration is, asit were, the beginning of eternal life, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 10: IfChrist be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit islife because of righteousness. And 2 Cor. 5, 2. 3: We are clothedupon, if so be that, being clothed, we shall not be found naked. From these statements the candid reader can judge that we certainlyrequire good works, since we teach that this faith arises inrepentance, and in repentance ought continually to increase; and inthese matters we place Christian and spiritual perfection, ifrepentance and faith grow together in repentance. This can be betterunderstood by the godly than those things which are taught by theadversaries concerning contemplation or perfection. Just as, however, justification pertains to faith, so also life eternal pertains tofaith. And Peter says, 1 Pet. 1, 9: Receiving the end, or fruit, ofyour faith, the salvation of your souls. For the adversaries confessthat the justified are children of God and coheirs of Christ. Afterwards works, because on account of faith they please God, meritother bodily and spiritual rewards. For there will be distinctionsin the glory of the saints. 

But here the adversaries reply that eternal life is called a reward, and that therefore it is merited _de condigno_ by good works. Wereply briefly and plainly: Paul, Rom. 6, 23, calls eternal life agift, because by the righteousness presented for Christ's sake, weare made at the same time sons of God and coheirs of Christ, as Johnsays, 3, 36: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. AndAugustine says, as also do very many others who follow him: Godcrowns His gifts in us. Elsewhere indeed, Luke 5, 23, it is written:Your reward is great in heaven. If these passages seem to theadversaries to conflict, they themselves may explain them. But theyare not fair judges; for they omit the word gift. They omit also thesources of the entire matter [the chief part, how we are justifiedbefore God, also that Christ remains at all times the Mediator], andthey select the word reward, and most harshly interpret this not onlyagainst Scripture, but also against the usage of the language. Hencethey infer that inasmuch as it is called a reward, our works, therefore, are such that they ought to be a price for which eternallife is due. They are, therefore, worthy of grace and life eternal, and do not stand in need of mercy, or of Christ as Mediator, or offaith. This logic is altogether new; we hear the term reward, andtherefore are to infer that there is no need of Christ as Mediator, or of faith having access to God for Christ's sake, and not for thesake of our works! Who does not see that these are anacoluthons? Wedo not contend concerning the term reward. We dispute concerningthis matter, namely, whether good works are of themselves worthy ofgrace and of eternal life, or whether they please only on account offaith, which apprehends Christ as Mediator. Our adversaries not onlyascribe this to works, namely, that they are worthy of grace and ofeternal life, but they also state falsely that they have superfluousmerits, which they can grant to others, and by which they can justifyothers, as when monks sell the merits of their orders to others. These monstrosities they heap up in the manner of Chrysippus, wherethis one word reward is heard, namely: "It is called a reward, andtherefore we have works which are a price for which a reward is due;therefore works please by themselves, and not for the sake of Christas Mediator. And since one has more merits than another, thereforesome have superfluous merits. And those who merit them can bestowthese merits upon others. " Stop, reader; you have not the whole ofthis sorites. For certain sacraments of this donation must be added;the hood is placed upon the dead. [As the Barefooted monks and otherorders have shamelessly done in placing the hoods of their ordersupon dead bodies. ] By such accumulations the blessings brought us inChrist, and the righteousness of faith have been obscured. [Theseare acute and strong arguments, all of which they can spin from thesingle word reward, whereby they obscure Christ and faith. ]

We are not agitating an idle logomachy concerning the term reward[but this great, exalted, most important matter, namely, whereChristian hearts are to find true and certain consolation; again, whether our works can give consciences rest and peace; again, whetherwe are to believe that our works are worthy of eternal life, orwhether that is given us for Christ's sake. These are the realquestions regarding these matters; if consciences are not rightlyinstructed concerning these, they can have no certain comfort. However, we have stated clearly enough that good works do not fulfilthe Law, that we need the mercy of God, that by faith we are acceptedwith God, that good works, be they ever so precious, even if theywere the works of St. Paul himself, cannot bring rest to theconscience. From all this it follows that we are to believe that weobtain eternal life through Christ by faith, not on account of ourworks, or of the Law. But what do we say of the reward whichScripture mentions?] If the adversaries will concede that we areaccounted righteous by faith because of Christ, and that good worksplease God because of faith, we will not afterwards contend muchconcerning the term reward. We confess that eternal life is a reward, because it is something due on account of the promise, not onaccount of our merits. For the justification has been promised, which we have above shown to be properly a gift of God; and to thisgift has been added the promise of eternal life, according to Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He also glorified. Here belongs whatPaul says, 2 Tim. 4, 8: There is laid up for me a crown ofrighteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me. For the crown is due the justified because of the promise. And thispromise saints should know, not that they may labor for their ownprofit, for they ought to labor for the glory of God; but in orderthat they may not despair in afflictions, they should know God's will, that He desires to aid, to deliver, to protect them. [Just as theinheritance and all possessions of a father are given to the son, asa rich compensation and reward for his obedience, and yet the sonreceives the inheritance, not on account of his merit, but becausethe father, for the reason that he is his father, wants him to haveit. Therefore it is a sufficient reason why eternal life is called areward, because thereby the tribulations which we suffer, and theworks of love which we do, are compensated, although we have notdeserved it. For there are two kinds of compensation: one, which weare obliged, the other, which we are not obliged, to render. I. E. , when the emperor grants a servant a principality, he therewithcompensates the servant's work; and yet the work is not worth theprincipality, but the servant acknowledges that he has received agracious lien. Thus God does not owe us eternal life, still, when Hegrants it to believers for Christ's sake, that is a compensation forour sufferings and works. ] Although the perfect hear the mention ofpenalties and rewards in one way, and the weak hear it in another way;for the weak labor for the sake of their own advantage. And yet thepreaching of rewards and punishments is necessary. In the preachingof punishments the wrath of God is set forth, and therefore thispertains to the preaching of repentance. In the preaching of rewards, grace is set forth. And just as Scripture, in the mention of goodworks, often embraces faith, --for it wishes righteousness of theheart to be included with the fruits, --so sometimes it offers gracetogether with other rewards as in Is. 58, 8 f. , and frequently inother places in the prophets. We also confess what we have oftentestified, that, although justification and eternal life pertain tofaith, nevertheless good works merit other bodily and spiritualrewards [which are rendered both in this life and after this life;for God defers most rewards until He glorifies saints after this life, because He wishes them in this life to be exercised in mortifyingthe old man] and degrees of rewards, according to 1 Cor. 3, 8: Everyman shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. [Forthe blessed will have reward, one higher than the other. Thisdifference merit makes, according as it pleases God; and it is merit, because they do these good works whom God has adopted as children andheirs. For thus they have merit which is their own and peculiar asone child with respect to another. ] For the righteousness of theGospel, which has to do with the promise of grace, freely receivesjustification and quickening. But the fulfilling of the Law, whichfollows faith, has to do with the Law, in which a reward is offeredand is due, not freely, but according to our works. But those whomerit this are justified before they do the Law. Therefore as Paulsays, Col. 1, 13; Rom. 8, 17, they have before been translated intothe kingdom of God's Son, and been made joint-heirs with Christ. Butas often as mention is made of merit, the adversaries immediatelytransfer the matter from other rewards to justification, although theGospel freely offers justification on account of Christ's merits andnot of our own; and the merits of Christ are communicated to us byfaith. But works and afflictions merit, not justification, but otherremunerations, as the reward is offered for the works in thesepassages: He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and hewhich soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully, 2 Cor. 9, 6. Here clearly the measure of the reward is connected with the measureof the work. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may belong upon the land, Ex. 20, 12. Also here the Law offers a reward toa certain work. Although, therefore, the fulfilling of the Lawmerits a reward, for a reward properly pertains to the Law, yet weought to be mindful of the Gospel, which freely offers justificationfor Christ's sake. We neither observe the Law nor can observe it, before we have been reconciled to God, justified, and regenerated. Neither would this fulfilling of the Law please God, unless we wouldbe accepted on account of faith. And because men are accepted onaccount of faith, for this very reason the inchoate fulfilling of theLaw pleases, and has a reward in this life and after this life. Concerning the term reward, very many other remarks might here bemade derived from the nature of the Law, which as they are tooextensive, must be explained in another connection. 

But the adversaries urge that it is the prerogative of good works tomerit eternal life, because Paul says, Rom. 2, 5: Who will render toevery one according to his works. Likewise v. 10: Glory, honor, andpeace to every man that worketh good. John 6, 29: They that havedone good [shall come forth] unto the resurrection of life. Matt. 2536: I was an hungred and ye gave Me meat etc. In these and allsimilar passages in which works are praised in the Scriptures, it isnecessary to understand not only outward works, but also the faith ofthe heart, because Scripture does not speak of hypocrisy, but of therighteousness of the heart with its fruits. Moreover, as often asmention is made of the Law and of works, we must know that Christ asMediator is not to be excluded. For He is the end of the Law, and HeHimself says, John 16, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing. According tothis rule we have said above that all passages concerning works canbe judged. Wherefore, when eternal life is granted to works, it isgranted to those who have been justified, because no men exceptjustified men, who are led by the Spirit of Christ, can do good works;and without faith and Christ, as Mediator, good works do not please, according to Heb. 11, 6: Without faith it is impossible to please God. When Paul says: He will render to every one according to his works, not only the outward work ought to be understood, but allrighteousness or unrighteousness. So: Glory to him that worketh good, i. E. , to the righteous. Ye gave Me meat, is cited as the fruit andwitness of the righteousness of the heart and of faith, and thereforeeternal life is rendered to righteousness. [There it must certainlybe acknowledged that Christ means not only the works, but that Hedesires to have the heart, which He wishes to esteem God aright, andto believe correctly concerning Him, namely, that it is through mercythat it is pleasing to God. Therefore Christ teaches thateverlasting life will be given the righteous, as Christ says: Therighteous shall go into everlasting life. ] In this way Scripture, atthe same time with the fruits, embraces the righteousness of theheart. And it often names the fruits, in order that it may be betterunderstood by the inexperienced, and to signify that a new life andregeneration, and not hypocrisy, are required. But regenerationoccurs, by faith, in repentance. 

No sane man can judge otherwise, neither do we here affect any idlesubtilty, so as to separate the fruits from the righteousness of theheart; if the adversaries would only have conceded that the fruitsplease because of faith, and of Christ as Mediator, and that bythemselves they are not worthy of grace and of eternal life. For inthe doctrine of the adversaries we condemn this, that in suchpassages of Scripture, understood either in a philosophical or aJewish manner, they abolish the righteousness of faith, and excludeChrist as Mediator. From these passages they infer that works meritgrace, sometimes de congruo, and at other times _de condigno_, namely, when love is added; i. E. , that they justify, and because they arerighteousness they are worthy of eternal life. This error manifestlyabolishes the righteousness of faith, which believes that we haveaccess to God for Christ's sake, not for the sake of our works, andthat through Christ, as Priest and Mediator, we are led to the Father, and have a reconciled Father, as has been sufficiently said above. And this doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith is not to beneglected in the Church of Christ, because without it the office ofChrist cannot be considered, and the doctrine of justification thatis left is only a doctrine of the Law. But we should retain theGospel, and the doctrine concerning the promise, granted for Christ'ssake. 

[We are here not seeking an unnecessary subtilty, but there is agreat reason why we must have a reliable account as regards thesequestions. For as soon as we concede to the adversaries that worksmerit eternal life, they spin from this concession the awkwardteaching that we are able to keep the Law of God, that we are not inneed of mercy, that we are righteous before God, that is, acceptedwith God by our works, not for the sake of Christ, that we can alsodo works of supererogations namely, more than the Law requires. Thusthe entire teaching concerning faith is suppressed. However, ifthere is to be and abide a Christian Church, the pure teachingconcerning Christ, concerning the righteousness of faith, must surelybe preserved. Therefore we must fight against these greatpharisaical errors, in order that we redeem the name of Christ andthe honor of the Gospel and of Christ, and preserve for Christianhearts a true, permanent, certain consolation. For how is itpossible that a heart or conscience can obtain rest, or hope forsalvation, when in afflictions and in the anguish of death our worksin the judgment and sight of God utterly become dust, unless itbecomes certain by faith that men are saved by mercy, for Christ'ssake, and not for the sake of their works, their fulfilling of theLaw? And, indeed, St. Laurentius, when placed on the gridiron, andbeing tortured for Christ's sake did not think that by this work hewas perfectly and absolutely fulfilling the Law, that he was withoutsin, that he did not need Christ as Mediator and the mercy of God. He rested his case, indeed, with the prophet, who says: Enter notinto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man livingbe justified, Ps. 143, 2. Nor did St. Bernard boast that his workswere worthy of eternal life, when he says: _Perdite vixi_, I have leda sinful life, etc. But he boldly comforts himself, clings to thepromise of grace, and believes that he has remission of sins and lifeeternal for Christ's sake, just as Psalm 32, 1 teaches: Blessed is hewhose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. And Paul says, Rom. 4, 6: David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whomGod imputeth righteousness without works. Paul, then, says that heis blessed to whom righteousness is imputed through faith in Christ, even though he have not performed any good works. That is the true, permanent consolation, by which hearts and consciences can beconfirmed and encouraged, namely that for Christ's sake, throughfaith, the remission of sins, righteousness, and life eternal aregiven us. Now, if passages which treat of works are understood insuch a manner as to comprise faith, they are not opposed to ourdoctrine. And, indeed, it is necessary always to add faith, so asnot to exclude Christ as Mediator. But the fulfilment of the Lawfollows faith; for the Holy Ghost is present, who renews life. Letthis suffice concerning this article. ]

We are not, therefore, on this topic contending with the adversariesconcerning a small matter. We are not seeking out idle subtiltieswhen we find fault with them for teaching that we merit eternal lifeby works, while that faith is omitted which apprehends Christ asMediator. For of this faith which believes that for Christ's sakethe Father is propitious to us there is not a syllable in thescholastics. Everywhere they hold that we are accepted and righteousbecause of our works, wrought either from reason, or certainlywrought by the inclination of that love concerning which they speak. And yet they have certain sayings, maxims, as it were, of the oldwriters, which they distort in interpreting. In the schools theboast is made that good works please on account of grace, and thatconfidence must be put in God's grace. Here they interpret grace asa habit by which we love God, as though, indeed, the ancients meantto say that we ought to trust in our love, of which we certainlyexperience how small and how impure it is. Although it is strangehow they bid us trust in love, since they teach us that we are notable to know whether it be present. Why do they not here set forththe grace, the mercy of God toward us? And as often as mention ismade of this, they ought to add faith. For the promise of God'smercy, reconciliation, and love towards us is not apprehended unlessby faith. With this view they would be right in saying that we oughtto trust in grace, that good works please because of grace, whenfaith apprehends grace. In the schools the boast is also made thatour good works avail by virtue of Christ's passion. Well said! Butwhy add nothing concerning faith? For Christ is a propitiation, asPaul, Rom. 3, 25, says, through faith. When timid consciences arecomforted by faith, and are convinced that our sins have been blottedout by the death of Christ, and that God has been reconciled to us onaccount of Christ's suffering, then, indeed, the suffering of Christprofits us. If the doctrine concerning faith be omitted, it is saidin vain that works avail by virtue of Christ's passion. 

And very many other passages they corrupt in the schools because theydo not teach the righteousness of faith and because they understandby faith merely a knowledge of the history or of dogmas, and do notunderstand by it that virtue which apprehends the promise of graceand of righteousness, and which quickens hearts in the terrors of sinand of death. When Paul says, Rom. 10, 10: With the heart manbelieveth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is madeunto salvation, we think that the adversaries acknowledge here thatconfession justifies or saves, not _ex opere operato_, but only onaccount of the faith of the heart. And Paul thus says thatconfession saves, in order to show what sort of faith obtains eternallife; namely, that which is firm and active. That faith, however, which does not manifest itself in confession is not firm. Thus othergood works please on account of faith, as also the prayers of theChurch ask that all things may be accepted for Christ's sake. Theylikewise ask all things for Christ's sake. For it is manifest thatat the close of prayers this clause is always added: Through Christ, our Lord. Accordingly, we conclude that we are justified before God, are reconciled to God and regenerated by faith, which in repentanceapprehends the promise of grace, and truly quickens the terrifiedmind, and is convinced that for Christ's sake God is reconciled andpropitious to us. And through this faith, says Peter, 1 Ep. 1, 5, weare kept unto salvation ready to be revealed. The knowledge of thisfaith is necessary to Christians, and brings the most abundantconsolation in all afflictions, and displays to us the office ofChrist because those who deny that men are justified by faith, anddeny that Christ is Mediator and Propitiator, deny the promise ofgrace and the Gospel. They teach only the doctrine either of reasonor of the Law concerning justification. We have shown the origin ofthis case, so far as can here be done, and have explained theobjections of the adversaries. Good men, indeed, will easily judgethese things, if they will think, as often as a passage concerninglove or works is cited, that the Law cannot be observed withoutChrist, and that we cannot be justified from the Law, but from theGospel, that is, from the promise of the grace promised in Christ. And we hope that this discussion, although brief, will be profitableto good men for strengthening faith, and teaching and comfortingconscience. For we know that those things which we have said are inharmony with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holyFathers, Ambrose, Augustine and very many others, and with the wholeChurch of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ isPropitiator and Justifier. 

Nor are we immediately to judge that the Roman Church agrees witheverything that the Pope, or cardinals, or bishops, or some of thetheologians, or monks approve. For it is manifest that to most ofthe pontiffs their own authority is of greater concern than theGospel of Christ. And it has been ascertained that most of them areopenly Epicureans. It is evident that theologians have mingled withChristian doctrine more of philosophy than was sufficient. Nor oughttheir influence to appear so great that it will never be lawful todissent from their disputations, because at the same time manymanifest errors are found among them, such as, that we are able frompurely natural powers to love God above all things. This dogma, although it is manifestly false, has produced many other errors. Forthe Scriptures the holy Fathers, and the judgments of all the godlyeverywhere make reply. Therefore, even though Popes, or sometheologians, and monks in the Church have taught us to seek remissionof sins, grace, and righteousness through our own works, and toinvent new forms of worship, which have obscured the office of Christ, and have made out of Christ not a Propitiator and Justifier, butonly a Legislator, nevertheless the knowledge of Christ has alwaysremained with some godly persons. Scripture, moreover, has predictedthat the righteousness of faith would be obscured in this way byhuman traditions and the doctrine of works. Just as Paul oftencomplains (cf. Gal. 4, 9; 5, 7; Col. 2, 8, 16 sq. ; 1 Tim. 4, 2 sq. , etc. ) that there were even at that time those who, instead of therighteousness of faith, taught that men were reconciled to God andjustified by their own works and own acts of worship, and not byfaith for Christ's sake; because men judge by nature that God oughtto be appeased by works. Nor does reason see a righteousness otherthan the righteousness of the Law, understood in a civil sense. Accordingly, there have always existed in the world some who havetaught this carnal righteousness alone to the exclusion of therighteousness of faith; and such teachers will also always exist. The same happened among the people of Israel. The greater part ofthe people thought that they merited remission of sins by their worksthey accumulated sacrifices and acts of worship. On the contrary, the prophets, in condemnation of this opinion, taught therighteousness of faith. And the occurrences among the people ofIsrael are illustrations of those things which were to occur in theChurch. Therefore, let the multitude of the adversaries, who condemnour doctrine, not disturb godly minds. For their spirit can easilybe judged, because in some articles they have condemned truth that isso clear and manifest that their godlessness appears openly. For thebull of Leo X condemned a very necessary article, which allChristians should hold and believe, namely, that we ought to trustthat we have been absolved not because of our contrition, but becauseof Christ's word, Matt. 16, 19: Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. Andnow, in this assembly, the authors of the _Confutation_ have in clearwords condemned this, namely, that we have said that faith is a partof repentance, by which we obtain remission of sins, and overcome theterrors of sin, and conscience is rendered pacified. Who, however, does not see that this article that by faith we obtain the remissionof sins, is most true, most certain, and especially necessary to allChristians? Who to all posterity, hearing that such a doctrine hasbeen condemned, will judge that the authors of this condemnation hadany knowledge of Christ?

And concerning their spirit, a conjecture can be made from theunheard-of cruelty, which it is evident that they have hithertoexercised towards most good men. And in this assembly we have heardthat a reverend father, when opinions concerning our Confession wereexpressed, said in the senate of the Empire that no plan seemed tohim better than to make a reply written in blood to the Confessionwhich we had presented written in ink. What more cruel wouldPhalaris say? Therefore some princes also have judged thisexpression unworthy to be spoken in such a meeting. Wherefore, although the adversaries claim for themselves the name of the Church, nevertheless we know that the Church of Christ is with those whoteach the Gospel of Christ, not with those who defend wicked opinionscontrary to the Gospel, as the Lord says, John 10, 21: My sheep hearMy voice. And Augustine says: The question is, Where is the Church!What, therefore, are we to do? Are we to seek it in our own words orin the words of its Head our Lord Jesus Christ? I think that weought to seek it in the words of Him who is Truth, and who knows Hisown body best. Hence the judgments of our adversaries will notdisturb us, since they defend human opinions contrary to the Gospel, contrary to the authority of the holy Fathers, who have written inthe Church, and contrary to the testimonies of godly minds. 

Part 11

Articles VII and VIII: _Of the Church. _

The Seventh Article of our Confession, in which we said that theChurch is the congregation of saints, they have condemned and haveadded a long disquisition, that the wicked are not to be separatedfrom the Church, since John has compared the Church to athreshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3, 12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which there are both goodand bad fishes, Matt. 13, 47. It is, verily, a true saying, namely, that there is no remedy against the attacks of the slanderer. Nothing can be spoken with such care that it can escape detraction. For this reason we have added the Eighth Article, lest any one mightthink that we separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outwardfellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacramentsadministered by hypocrites or wicked men. Therefore there is no needhere of a long defense against this slander. The Eighth Article issufficient to exculpate us. For we grant that in this lifehypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and thatthey are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship ofthe signs of the Church, i. E. , of Word, profession, and Sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated. Neither are theSacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administeredby wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacramentsadministered by wicked men. For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2, 4, that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i. E. , he will rule andbear office in the Church. But the Church is not only the fellowshipof outward objects and rites, as other governments, but it isoriginally a fellowship of faith and of the Holy Ghost in hearts. [The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outwardsigns, but it consists especially in inward communion of eternalblessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of the fearand love of God]; which fellowship nevertheless has outward marks sothat it can be recognized, namely, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the Sacraments in accordance with theGospel of Christ. [Namely, where God's Word is pure, and theSacraments are administered in conformity with the same, therecertainly is the Church, and there are Christians. ] And this Churchalone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews [Christ isits Head, and] sanctifies and governs by His Spirit, as Paultestifies, Eph. 1, 22 sq. , when he says: And gave Him to be the Headover all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Himthat filleth all in all. Wherefore, those in whom Christ does notact [through His Spirit] are not the members of Christ. This, too, the adversaries acknowledge, namely, that the wicked are dead membersof the Church. Therefore we wonder why they have found fault withour description [our conclusion concerning Church] which speaks ofliving members. Neither have we said anything new. Paul has definedthe Church precisely in the same way, Eph. 6, 25 f. , that it shouldbe cleansed in order to be holy. And he adds the outward marks, theWord and Sacraments. For he says thus: Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it withthe washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himselfa glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. In the Confession wehave presented this sentence almost in the very words. Thus also theChurch is defined by the article in the Creed which teaches us tobelieve that there is a holy Catholic Church. The wicked indeed arenot a holy Church. And that which follows, namely, the communion ofsaints, seems to be added in order to explain what the Churchsignifies, namely, the congregation of saints, who have with eachother the fellowship of the same Gospel or doctrine [who confess oneGospel, have the same knowledge of Christ] and of the same Holy Ghost, who renews, sanctifies, and governs their hearts. 

And this article has been presented for a necessary reason. [Thearticle of the Church Catholic or Universal, which is gatheredtogether from every nation under the sun, is very comforting andhighly necessary. ] We see the infinite dangers which threaten thedestruction of the Church. In the Church itself, infinite is themultitude of the wicked who oppress it [despise, bitterly hate, andmost violently persecute the Word, as, e. G. , the Turks, Mohammedans, other tyrants, heretics, etc. For this reason the true teaching andthe Church are often so utterly suppressed and disappear, as if therewere no Church which has happened under the papacy, it often seemsthat the Church has completely perished]. Therefore, in order thatwe may not despair, but may know that the Church will neverthelessremain [until the end of the world], likewise that we may know that, however great the multitude of the wicked is, yet the Church [whichis Christ's bride] exists, and that Christ affords those gifts whichHe has promised to the Church, to forgive sins, to hear prayer, togive the Holy Ghost, this article in the Creed presents us theseconsolations. And it says church Catholic, in order that we may notunderstand the Church to be an outward government of certain nations[that the Church is like any other external polity, bound to this orthat land, kingdom, or nation, as the Pope of Rome will say], butrather men scattered throughout the whole world [here and there inthe world, from the rising to the setting of the sun], who agreeconcerning the Gospel, and have the same Christ, the same Holy Ghost, and the same Sacraments, whether they have the same or differenthuman traditions. And the gloss upon the Decrees says that theChurch in its wide sense embraces good and evil; likewise, that thewicked are in the Church only in name, not in fact; but that the goodare in the Church both in fact and in name. And to this effect thereare many passages in the Fathers. For Jerome says: The sinner, therefore, who Has been soiled with any blotch cannot be called amember of the Church of Christ, neither can he be said to be subjectto Christ. 

Although, therefore, hypocrites and wicked men are members of thistrue Church according to outward rites [titles and offices], yet whenthe Church is defined, it is necessary to define that which is theliving body of Christ, and which is in name and in fact the Church[which is called the body of Christ, and has fellowship not alone inoutward signs, but has gifts in the heart, namely, the Holy Ghost andfaith]. And for this there are many reasons. For it is necessary tounderstand what it is that principally makes us members, and that, living members, of the Church. If we will define the Church only asan outward polity of the good and wicked, men will not understandthat the kingdom of Christ is righteousness of heart and the gift ofthe Holy Ghost [that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, asnevertheless it is, that therein Christ inwardly rules, strengthens, and comforts hearts, and imparts the Holy Ghost and various spiritualgifts], but they will judge that it is only the outward observance ofcertain forms of worship and rites. Likewise, what difference willthere be between the people of the Law and the Church if the Churchis an outward polity? But Paul distinguishes the Church from thepeople of the Law thus, that the Church is a spiritual people, i. E. , that it has been distinguished from the heathen not by civil rites[not in the polity and civil affairs], but that it is the true peopleof God, regenerated by the Holy Ghost. Among the people of the Law, apart from the promise of Christ, also the carnal seed [all those whoby nature were born Jews and Abraham's seed] had promises concerningcorporeal things, of government, etc. And because of these even thewicked among them were called the people of God, because God hadseparated this carnal seed from other nations by certain outwardordinances and promises; and yet, these wicked persons did not pleaseGod. But the Gospel [which is preached in the Church] brings notmerely the shadow of eternal things, but the eternal thingsthemselves, the Holy Ghost and righteousness, by which we arerighteous before God. [But every true Christian is even here uponearth partaker of eternal blessings, even of eternal comfort, ofeternal life, and of the Holy Ghost, and of righteousness which isfrom God, until he will be completely saved in the world to come. ]

Therefore, only those are the people, according to the Gospel, whoreceive this promise of the Spirit. Besides, the Church is thekingdom of Christ, distinguished from the kingdom of the devil. Itis certain, however, that the wicked are in the power of the devil, and members of the kingdom of the devil, as Paul teaches, Eph. 2, 2, when he says that the devil now worketh in the children ofdisobedience. And Christ says to the Pharisees, who certainly hadoutward fellowship with the Church, i. E. , with the saints among thepeople of the Law (for they held office, sacrificed, and taught): Yeare of your father, the devil, John 8, 44. Therefore, the Church, which is truly the kingdom of Christ is properly the congregation ofsaints. For the wicked are ruled by the devil, and are captives ofthe devil; they are not ruled by the Spirit of Christ. 

But what need is there of words in a manifest matter? [However, theadversaries contradict the plain truth. ] If the Church, which istruly the kingdom of Christ, is distinguished from the kingdom of thedevil, it follows necessarily that the wicked, since they are in thekingdom of the devil, are not the Church; although in this life, because the kingdom of Christ has not yet been revealed; they aremingled with the Church, and hold offices [as teachers, and otheroffices] in the Church. Neither are the wicked the kingdom of Christ, for the reason that the revelation has not yet been made. For thatis always the kingdom which He quickens by His Spirit, whether it berevealed or be covered by the cross; just as He who has now beenglorified is the same Christ who was before afflicted. And with thisclearly agree the parables of Christ, who says, Matt. 13, 38, thatthe good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are thechildren of the Wicked One. The field, He says, is the world, notthe Church. Thus John [Matt. 3, 12: He will throughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff]speaks concerning the whole race of the Jews, and says that it willcome to pass that the true Church will be separated from that people. Therefore, this passage is more against the adversaries than infavor of them, because it shows that the true and spiritual people isto be separated from the carnal people. Christ also speaks of theoutward appearance of the Church when He says, Matt. 13, 47: Thekingdom of heaven is like unto a net, likewise, to ten virgins; andHe teaches that the Church has been covered by a multitude of evils, in order that this stumbling-block may not offend the pious; likewise, in order that we may know that the Word and Sacraments areefficacious even when administered by the wicked. And meanwhile Heteaches that these godless men, although they have the fellowship ofoutward signs, are nevertheless not the true kingdom of Christ andmembers of Christ; for they are members of the kingdom of the devil. Neither, indeed, are we dreaming of a Platonic state, as somewickedly charge, but we say that this Church exists, namely, thetruly believing and righteous men scattered throughout the wholeworld [We are speaking not of an imaginary Church, which is to befound nowhere; but we say and know certainly that this Church, wherein saints live, is and abides truly upon earth; namely, thatsome of God's children are here and there in all the world, invarious kingdoms, islands, lands, and cities, from the rising of thesun to its setting, who have truly learned to know Christ and HisGospel. ] And we add the marks: the pure doctrine of the Gospel [theministry or the Gospel] and the Sacraments. And this Church isproperly the pillar of the truth, 1 Tim. 3, 15. For it retains thepure Gospel, and, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 11 [: "Other foundation canno man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"], the foundation, i. E. , the true knowledge of Christ and faith. Although among these[in the body which is built upon the true foundation, i. E. , uponChrist and faith] there are also many weak persons, who build uponthe foundation stubble that will perish, i. E. , certain unprofitableopinions [some human thoughts and opinions], which, nevertheless, because they do not overthrow the foundation are both forgiven themand also corrected. And the writings of the holy Fathers testifythat sometimes even they built stubble upon the foundation, but thatthis did not overthrow their faith. But most of those errors whichour adversaries defend, overthrow faith, as, their condemnation ofthe article concerning the remission of sins, in which we say thatthe remission of sins is received by faith. Likewise it is amanifest and pernicious error when the adversaries teach that menmerit the remission of sins by love to God, prior to grace. [In theplace of Christ they set up their works, orders, masses, just as theJews, the heathen, and the Turks intend to be saved by their works. ]For this also is to remove "the foundation, " i. E. , Christ. Likewise, what need will there be of faith if the Sacraments justify _ex opereoperato_, without a good disposition on the part of the one usingthem? [without faith. Now, a person that does not regard faith asnecessary has already lost Christ. Again, they set up the worship ofsaints, call upon them instead of Christ, the Mediator, etc. ] Butjust as the Church has the promise that it will always have the HolyGhost, so it has also the threatenings that there will be wickedteachers and wolves. But that is the Church in the proper sensewhich has the Holy Ghost. Although wolves and wicked teachers becomerampant [rage and do injury] in the Church, yet they are not properlythe kingdom of Christ. Just as Lyra also testifies, when he says:The Church does not consist of men with respect to power, orecclesiastical or secular dignity, because many princes andarchbishops and others of lower rank have been found to haveapostatized from the faith. Therefore, the Church consists of thosepersons in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith andtruth. What else have we said in our Confession than what Lyra heresays [in terms so clear that he could not have spoken more clearly]?

But the adversaries perhaps require [a new Roman definition], thatthe Church be defined thus, namely, that it is the supreme outwardmonarchy of the whole world, in which the Roman pontiff necessarilyhas unquestioned power, which no one is permitted to dispute orcensure [no matter whether he uses it rightly, or misuses it], toframe articles of faith; to abolish, according to his pleasure, theScriptures [to pervert and interpret them contrary to all divine law, contrary to his own decretals, contrary to all imperial rights, asoften, to as great an extent, and whenever it pleases him, to sellindulgences and dispensations for money]; to appoint rites of worshipand sacrifices; likewise, to frame such laws as he may wish, and todispense and exempt from whatever laws he may wish, divine, canonical, or civil; and that from him [as from the vicegerent of Christ] theEmperor and all kings receive, according to the command of Christ, the power and right to hold their kingdoms, from whom, since theFather has subjected all things to Him, it must be understood, thisright was transferred to the Pope; therefore the Pope mustnecessarily be [a God on earth, the supreme Majesty, ] lord of thewhole world, of all the kingdoms of the world, of all things privateand public, and must have absolute power in temporal and spiritualthings, and both swords, the spiritual and temporal Besides thisdefinition, not of the Church of Christ but of the papal kingdom, hasas its authors not only the canonists, but also Daniel 11 36 ff. [Daniel, the prophet, represents Antichrist in this way. ]

Now, if we would define the Church in this way [that it is such pomp, as is exhibited in the Pope's rule], we would perhaps have fairerjudges. For there are many things extant written extravagantly andwickedly concerning the power of the Pope of Rome on account of whichno one has ever been arraigned. We alone are blamed, because weproclaim the beneficence of Christ [and write and preach the clearword and teaching of the apostles], that by faith in Christ we obtainremission of sins, and not by [hypocrisy or innumerable] rites ofworship devised by the Pope. Moreover, Christ, the prophets, and theapostles define the Church of Christ far otherwise than as the papalkingdom. Neither must we transfer to the Popes what belongs to thetrue Church, namely, that they are pillars of the truth, that they donot err. For how many of them care for the Gospel or judge that it[one little page, one letter of it] is worth being read? Many [inItaly and elsewhere] even publicly ridicule all religions, or, ifthey approve anything, they approve such things only as are inharmony with human reason, and regard the rest fabulous and like thetragedies of the poets. Wherefore we hold, according Scriptures, that the Church, properly so called, is the congregation of saints[of those here and there in the world], who truly believe the Gospelof Christ, and have the Holy Ghost. And yet we confess that in thislife many hypocrites and wicked men, mingled with these, have thefellowship of outward signs who are members of the Church accordingto this fellowship of outward signs, and accordingly bear offices inthe Church [preach, administer the Sacraments, and bear the title andname of Christians]. Neither does the fact that the sacraments areadministered by the unworthy detract from their efficacy, because, onaccount of the call of the Church, they represent the person ofChrist, and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies, Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me. [Thus even Judas wassent to preach. ] When they offer the Word of God, when they offer theSacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ. Thosewords of Christ teach us not to be offended by the unworthiness ofthe ministers. 

But concerning this matter we have spoken with sufficient clearnessin the Confession that we condemn the Donatists and Wyclifites, whothought that men sinned when they received the sacraments from theunworthy in the Church. These things seem, for the present, to besufficient for the defense of the description of the Church which wehave presented. Neither do we see how, when the Church, properly socalled, is named the body of Christ, it should be described otherwisethan we have described it. For it is evident that the wicked belongto the kingdom and body of the devil, who impels and holds captivethe wicked. These things are clearer than the light of noonday, however, if the adversaries still continue to pervert them, we willnot hesitate to reply at greater length. 

The adversaries condemn also the part of the Seventh Article in whichwe said that "to the unity of the Church it is sufficient to agreeconcerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of theSacraments; nor is it necessary that human traditions rites orceremonies instituted by men should be alike everywhere. " Here theydistinguish between universal and particular rites, and approve ourarticle if it be understood concerning particular rites, they do notreceive it concerning universal rites. [That is a fine clumsydistinction!] We do not sufficiently understand what the adversariesmean. We are speaking of true, i. E. , of spiritual unity [we say thatthose are one harmonious Church who believe in one Christ, who haveone Gospel, one Spirit, one faith, the same Sacraments; and we arespeaking, therefore, of spiritual unity], without which faith in theheart, or righteousness of heart before God cannot exist. For thiswe say that similarity of human rites, whether universal orparticular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith isnot a righteousness bound to certain traditions [outward ceremoniesof human ordinances] as the righteousness of the Law was bound to theMosaic ceremonies, because this righteousness of the heart is amatter that quickens the heart. To this quickening, human traditions, whether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neitherare they effects of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, thefear of God, love to one's neighbor, and the works of love. 

Neither were the reasons trifling why we presented this article. Forit is evident that many [great errors and] foolish opinionsconcerning traditions had crept into the Church. Some thought thathuman traditions were necessary services for meriting justification[that without such human ordinances Christian holiness and faith areof no avail before God; also that no one can be a Christian unless heobserve such traditions, although they are nothing but an outwardregulation]. And afterwards they disputed how it came to pass thatGod was worshiped with such variety, as though, indeed, theseobservances were acts of worship, and not rather outward andpolitical ordinances, pertaining in no respect to righteousness ofheart or the worship of God, which vary, according to thecircumstances, for certain probable reasons, sometimes in one way andat other times in another [as in worldly governments one state hascustoms different from another]. Likewise some Churches haveexcommunicated others because of such traditions, as the observanceof Easter, pictures, and the like. Hence the ignorant have supposedthat faith, or the righteousness of the heart before God, cannotexist [and that no one can be a Christian] without these observances. For many foolish writings of the Summists and of others concerningthis matter are extant. 

But just as the dissimilar length of day and night does not injurethe unity of the Church, so we believe that the true unity of theChurch is not injured by dissimilar rites instituted by men; althoughit is pleasing to us that, for the sake of tranquillity [unity andgood order], universal rites be observed just as also in the churcheswe willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord's Day, and othermore eminent festival days. And with a very grateful mind we embracethe profitable and ancient ordinances, especially since they containa discipline by which it is profitable to educate and train thepeople and those who are ignorant [the young people]. But now we arenot discussing the question whether it be of advantage to observethem on account of peace or bodily profit. Another matter is treatedof. For the question at issue is, whether the observances of humantraditions are acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God. This is the point to be judged in this controversy and when this isdecided, it can afterwards be judged whether to the true unity of theChurch it is necessary that human traditions should everywhere bealike. For if human traditions be not acts of worship necessary forrighteousness before God, it follows that also they can be righteousand be the sons of God who have not the traditions which have beenreceived elsewhere. F. I. , if the style of German clothing is notworship of God, necessary for righteousness before God, it followsthat men can be righteous and sons of God and the Church of Christ, even though they use a costume that is not German, but French. 

Paul clearly teaches this to the Colossians, 2, 16. 17: Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of anholy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are ashadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Likewise, v. 20sqq. : If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touchnot; taste not; handle not; which are to perish with the using), after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have, indeed, a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility. For themeaning is: Since righteousness of the heart is a spiritual matter, quickening hearts, and it is evident that human traditions do notquicken hearts and are not effects of the Holy Ghost, as are love toone's neighbor, chastity, etc. , and are not instruments through whichGod moves hearts to believe, as are the divinely given Word andSacraments, but are usages with regard to matters that pertain in norespect to the heart, which perish with the using, we must notbelieve that they are necessary for righteousness before God. [Theyare nothing eternal, hence, they do not procure eternal life, but arean external bodily discipline, which does not change the heart. ] Andto the same effect he says, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God is notmeat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. But there is no need to cite many testimonies, since they areeverywhere obvious in the Scriptures, and in our Confession we havebrought together very many of them, in the latter articles. And thepoint to be decided in this controversy must be repeated after awhile, namely, whether human traditions be acts of worship necessaryfor righteousness before God. There we will discuss this matter morefully. 

The adversaries say that universal traditions are to be observedbecause they are supposed to have been handed down by the apostles. What religious men they are! They wish that the rites derived fromthe apostles be retained, they do not wish the doctrine of theapostles to be retained. They must judge concerning these rites justas the apostles themselves judge in their writings. For the apostlesdid not wish us to believe that through such rites we are justified, that such rites are necessary for righteousness before God. Theapostles did not wish to impose such a burden upon consciences; theydid not wish to place righteousness and sin in the observance of days, food, and the like. Yea, Paul calls such opinions doctrines ofdevils, 1 Tim. 4, 1. Therefore the will and advice of the apostlesought to be derived from their writings; it is not enough to mentiontheir example. They observed certain days, not because thisobservance was necessary for justification, but in order that thepeople might know at what time they should assemble. They observedalso certain other rites and orders of lessons whenever theyassembled. The people [In the beginning of the Church the Jews whohad become Christians] retained also from the customs of the Fathers[from their Jewish festivals and ceremonies], as is commonly the case, certain things which, being somewhat changed, the apostles adaptedto the history of the Gospel as the Passover, Pentecost, so that notonly by teaching, but also through these examples they might handdown to posterity the memory of the most important subjects. But ifthese things were handed down as necessary for justification, whyafterwards did the bishops change many things in these very matters?For, if they were matters of divine right, it was not lawful tochange them by human authority. Before the Synod of Nice someobserved Easter at one time and others at another time. Neither didthis want of uniformity injure faith. Afterward the plan was adoptedby which our Passover [Easter] did not fall at the same time as thatof the Jewish Passover. But the apostles had commanded the Churchesto observe the Passover with the brethren who had been converted fromJudaism. Therefore, after the Synod of Nice, certain nationstenaciously held to the custom of observing the Jewish time. But theapostles, by this decree, did not wish to impose necessity upon theChurches, the words of the decree testify. For it bids no one to betroubled, even though his brethren, in observing Easter, do notcompute the time aright. The words of the decree are extant inEpiphanius: Do not calculate, but celebrate it whenever your brethrenof the circumcision do; celebrate it at the same time with them, andeven though they may have erred, let not this be a care to you.. Epiphanius writes that these are the words of the apostles presentedin a decree concerning Easter, in which the discreet reader caneasily judge that the apostles wished to free the people from thefoolish opinion of a fixed time, when they prohibit them from beingtroubled, even though a mistake should be made in the computation. Some, moreover in the East, who were called, from the author of thedogma, Audians, contended, on account of this decree of the apostles, that the Passover should be observed with the Jews. Epiphanius, inrefuting them, praises the decree and says that it contains nothingwhich deviates from the faith or rule of the Church, and blames theAudians because they do not understand aright the expression, andinterprets it in the sense in which we interpret it because theapostles did not consider it of any importance at what time thePassover should be observed, but because prominent brethren had beenconverted from the Jews who observed their custom, and, for the sakeof harmony, wished the rest to follow their example And the apostleswisely admonished the reader neither to remove the liberty of theGospel, nor to impose necessity upon consciences, because they addthat they should not be troubled even though there should be an errorin making the computation. 

Many things of this class can be gathered from the histories, inwhich it appears that a want of uniformity in human observances doesnot injure the unity of faith [separate no one from the universalChristian Church]. Although, what need is there of discussion? Theadversaries do not at all understand what the righteousness of faithis, what the kingdom of Christ is, when they judge that uniformity ofobservances in food, days, clothing, and the like, which do not havethe command of God, is necessary. But look at the religious men, ouradversaries. For the unity of the Church they require uniform humanobservances, although they themselves have changed the ordinance ofChrist in the use of the Supper, which certainly was a universalordinance before. But if universal ordinances are so necessary, whydo they themselves change the ordinance of Christ's Supper, which isnot human, but divine? But concerning this entire controversy weshall have to speak at different times below. 

The entire Eighth Article has been approved, in which we confess thathypocrites and wicked persons have been mingled with the Church, andthat the Sacraments are efficacious even though dispensed by wickedministers, because the ministers act in the place of Christ, and donot represent their own persons, according to Luke 10, 16: He thatheareth you heareth Me. Impious teachers are to be deserted [are notto be received or heard], because these do not act any longer in theplace of Christ, but are antichrists. And Christ says Matt. 7, 15:Beware of false prophets. And Paul, Gal. 1, 9: If any man preach anyother gospel unto you, let him be accursed. 

Moreover, Christ has warned us in His parables concerning the Church, that when offended by the private vices, whether of priests or people, we should not excite schisms, as the Donatists have wickedly done. As to those, however, who have excited schisms, because they deniedthat priests are permitted to hold possessions and property, we holdthat they are altogether seditious. For to hold property is a civilordinance. It is lawful, however, for Christians to use civilordinances, just as they use the air, the light, food, drink. For asthis order of the world and fixed movements of the heavenly bodiesare truly God's ordinances and these are preserved by God, so lawfulgovernments are truly God's ordinances, and are preserved anddefended by God against the devil. 

Part 12

Article IX: _Of Baptism. _

The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptismis necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, andthat the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary andeffectual to salvation. And since the Gospel is taught among uspurely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it thisfruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have notgained ground in our Churches], because the people have beenfortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction ofthese robbers. And as we condemn quite a number of other errors ofthe Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that thebaptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certainthat the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [thatthe divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not aloneto the old, but also to children]. It does not, however, pertain tothose who are outside of Christ's Church where there is neither Wordnor Sacraments because the kingdom of Christ exists only with theWord and Sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize littlechildren, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered toall, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [theuniversal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered. Secondly, itis manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism oflittle children is shown--by this, namely, that God gives the HolyGhost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized inchildhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghostwould be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there wouldbe no Church. [For there have been many holy men in the Church whohave not been baptized otherwise. ] This reason, even taken alone, cansufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless andfanatical opinions of the Anabaptists. 

Part 13

Article X: _Of the Holy Supper. _

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that webelieve, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ aretruly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with thosethings which are seen, bread and wine to those who receive theSacrament. This belief we constantly defend as the subject has beencarefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10, 16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc. , itwould follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that thebread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit ofChrist. And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Churchaffirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also bothnow believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of theMass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly praysthat the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, saysdistinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed intoflesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in whichhe teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. Forhe says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joinedspiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that wehave no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, thisindeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign tothe divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in thismanner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life forourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10, 17; Rom. 12, 5; Gal. 3, 28:We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction isunknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by thecommunication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us notonly according to the habit, which we call love, but also by naturalparticipation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertakea discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majestydoes not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who mayread them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrinereceived in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body andblood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are trulytendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And wespeak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we knowthat death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6, 9. 

Part 14

Article XI: _Of Confession. _

The Eleventh Article, Of Retaining Absolutism in the Church, isapproved. But they add a correction in reference to confession, namely, that the regulation headed, _Omnis Utriusque_, be observed, and that both annual confession be made, and, although all sinscannot be enumerated, nevertheless diligence be employed in orderthat they be recollected, and those which can be recalled berecounted. Concerning this entire article, we will speak at greaterlength after a while, when we will explain our entire opinionconcerning repentance. It is well known that we have so elucidatedand extolled [that we have preached, written, and taught in a mannerso Christian, correct, and pure] the benefit of absolution and thepower of the keys that many distressed consciences have derivedconsolation from our doctrine, after they heard that it is thecommand of God, nay, rather the very voice of the Gospel, that weshould believe the absolution, and regard it as certain that theremission of sins is freely granted us for Christ's sake, and that weshould believe that by this faith we are truly reconciled to God [asthough we heard a voice from heaven]. This belief has encouragedmany godly minds, and, in the beginning, brought Luther the highestcommendation from all good men, since it shows consciences sure andfirm consolation because previously the entire power of absolution[entire necessary doctrine of repentance] had been kept suppressed bydoctrines concerning works, since the sophists and monks taughtnothing of faith and free remission [but pointed men to their ownworks, from which nothing but despair enters alarmed consciences]. 

But with respect to the time, certainly most men in our churches usethe Sacraments, absolution and the Lord's Supper, frequently in ayear. And those who teach of the worth and fruits of the Sacramentsspeak in such a manner as to invite the people to use the Sacramentsfrequently. For concerning this subject there are many things extantwritten by our theologians in such a manner that the adversaries, ifthey are good men, will undoubtedly approve and praise them. Excommunication is also pronounced against the openly wicked [thosewho live in manifest vices, fornication, adultery, etc. ] and thedespisers of the Sacraments. These things are thus done bothaccording to the Gospel and according to the old canons. But a fixedtime is not prescribed, because all are not ready in like manner atthe same time. Yea, if all are to come at the same time, they cannotbe heard and instructed in order [so diligently]. And the old canonsand Fathers do not appoint a fixed time. The canon speaks only thus:If any enter the Church and be found never to commune, let them beadmonished that, if they do not commune, they come to repentance. Ifthey commune [if they wish to be regarded as Christians], let themnot be expelled; if they fail to do so, let them be excommunicated. Christ [Paul] says, I Cor. 11, 29, that those who eat unworthily eatjudgment to themselves. The pastors, accordingly, do not compelthose who are not qualified to use the Sacraments. 

Concerning the enumeration of sins in confession, men are taught insuch a way as not to ensnare their consciences. Although it is ofadvantage to accustom inexperienced men to enumerate some things[which worry them], in order that they may be the more readily taught, yet we are now discussing what is necessary according to divine Law. Therefore, the adversaries ought not to cite for us the regulation_Omnis Utriusque_, which is not unknown to us, but they ought to showfrom the divine Law that an enumeration of sins is necessary forobtaining their remission. The entire Church, throughout all Europe, knows what sort of snares this point of the regulation, whichcommands that all sins be confessed, has east upon consciences. Neither has the text by itself as much disadvantage as was afterwardsadded by the Summists, who collect the circumstances of the sins. What labyrinths were there! How great a torture for the best minds!For the licentious and profane were in no way moved by theseinstruments of terror. Afterwards what tragedies [what jealousy andhatred] did the questions concerning one's own priest excite amongthe pastors and brethren [monks of various orders], who then were byno means brethren when they were warring concerning jurisdiction ofconfessions! [for all brotherliness, all friendship, ceased, when thequestion was concerning authority and confessor's fees. ] We, therefore, believe that, according to divine Law, the enumeration ofsins is not necessary. This also is pleasing to Panormitanus andvery many other learned jurisconsults. Nor do we wish to imposenecessity upon the consciences of our people by the regulation _OmnisUtriusque_, of which we judge, just as of other human traditions, that they are not acts of worship necessary for justification. Andthis regulation commands an impossible matter, that we should confessall sins. It is evident, however, that most sins we neither remembernor understand [nor do we indeed even see the greatest sins], according to Ps. 19, 13: Who can understand his errors?

If the pastors are good men, they will know how far it is ofadvantage to examine [the young and otherwise] inexperienced personsbut we do not wish to sanction the torture [the tyranny ofconsciences] of the Summists, which notwithstanding would have beenless intolerable if they had added one word concerning faith, whichcomforts and encourages consciences. Now, concerning this faithwhich obtains the remission of sins, there is not a syllable in sogreat a mass of regulations, glosses, summaries, books of confession. Christ is nowhere read there. [Nobody will there read a word bywhich he could learn to know Christ, or what Christ is. ] Only thelists of sins are read [to the end of gathering and accumulating sins, and this would be of some value if they understood those sins whichGod regards as such]. And the greater part is occupied with sinsagainst human traditions, and this is most vain. This doctrine hasforced to despair many godly minds, which were not able to find rest, because they believed that by divine Law an enumeration was necessary, and yet they experienced that it was impossible. But other faultsof no less moment inhere in the doctrine of the adversariesconcerning repentance, which we will now recount. 

Part 15

Article XII (V): _Of Repentance. _

In the Twelfth Article they approve of the first part, in which weset forth that such as have fallen after baptism may obtain remissionof sins at whatever time, and as often as they are converted. Theycondemn the second part, in which we say that the parts of repentanceare contrition and faith [a penitent, contrite heart, and faith, namely that I receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ]. [Hear, now, what it is that the adversaries deny. ] They [without shame]deny that faith is the second part of repentance. What are we to dohere, O Charles, thou most invincible Emperor? The very voice of theGospel is this, that by faith we obtain the remission of sins. [Thisword is not our word but the voice and word of Jesus Christ, ourSavior. ] This voice of the Gospel these writers of the _Confutation_condemn. We, therefore, can in no way assent to the _Confutation_. We cannot condemn the voice of the Gospel, so salutary and aboundingin consolation. What else is the denial that by faith we obtainremission of sins than to treat the blood and death of Christ withscorn? We therefore beseech thee, O Charles most invincible Emperor, patiently and diligently to hear and examine this most importantsubject, which contains the chief topic of the Gospel, and the trueknowledge of Christ, and the true worship of God [these great, mostexalted and important matters which concern our own souls andconsciences yea, also the entire faith of Christians, the entireGospel, the knowledge of Christ, and what is highest and greatest, not only in this perishable, but also in the future life: theeverlasting welfare or perdition of us all before God]. For all goodmen will ascertain that especially on this subject we have taughtthings that are true, godly, salutary, and necessary for the wholeChurch of Christ [things of the greatest significance to all pioushearts in the entire Christian Church on which their whole salvationand welfare depends, and without instruction on which there can be orremain no ministry, no Christian Church]. They will ascertain fromthe writings of our theologians that very much light has been addedto the Gospel, and many pernicious errors have been corrected, bywhich, through the opinions of the scholastics and canonists, thedoctrine of repentance was previously covered. 

Before we come to the defense of our position, we must say this first:All good men of all ranks, and also of the theological rankundoubtedly confess that before the writings of Luther appeared, thedoctrine of repentance was very much confused. The books of theSententiaries are extant, in which there are innumerable questionswhich no theologians were ever able to explain satisfactorily. Thepeople were able neither to comprehend the sum of the matter, nor tosee what things especially were required in repentance, where peaceof conscience was to be sought for. Let any one of the adversariescome and tell us when remission of sins takes place. O good God, what darkness there is! They doubt whether it is in attrition or incontrition that remission of sins occurs. And if it occurs onaccount of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what doesthe power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?Here, indeed, they also labor much more, and wickedly detract fromthe power of the keys. Some dream that by the power of the keysguilt is not remitted, but that eternal punishments are changed intotemporal. Thus the most salutary power would be the ministry, not oflife and the Spirit, but only of wrath and punishments. Others, namely, the more cautious imagine that by the power of the keys sinsare remitted before the Church and not before God. This also is apernicious error. For if the power of the keys does not console usbefore God, what, then, will pacify the conscience? Still moreinvolved is what follows. They teach that by contrition we meritgrace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul andJudas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did notobtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according tothe Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not supporthimself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows thedistinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But theadversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not loveGod, but feared the punishments. [Is not this teaching uncertain andimproper things concerning repentance?] When, however, will aterrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and greatterrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and whichthose certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decidewhether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, asits God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments? [These people maynot have experienced much of these anxieties, because they jugglewords and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in theheart when the test is applied, the matter turns out quitedifferently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltrysyllables and words. ] These great emotions can be distinguished inletters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as thesesweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all goodand wise men [who also desire to know the truth]. They undoubtedlywill confess that these discussions in the writings of theadversaries are very confused and intricate. And nevertheless themost important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel, the remission of sins. This entire doctrine concerning thesequestions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of theadversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefitof Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith [toinexpressible injury of conscience]. 

These things occur in the first act. What when they come toconfession? What a work there is in the endless enumeration of sinswhich is nevertheless, in great part, devoted to those against humantraditions! And in order that good minds may by this means be themore tortured, they falsely assert that this enumeration is of divineright. And while they demand this enumeration under the pretext ofdivine right, in the mean time they speak coldly concerningabsolution which is truly of divine right. They falsely assert thatthe Sacrament itself confers grace _ex opere operato_ without a gooddisposition on the part of the one using it; no mention is made offaith apprehending the absolution and consoling the conscience. Thisis truly what is generally called _apienai pro tohn mustehriohn_departing before the mysteries. [Such people are called genuine Jews. ]

The third act [of this play] remains, concerning satisfactions. Butthis contains the most confused discussions. They imagine thateternal punishments are commuted to the punishments of purgatory, andteach that a part of these is remitted by the power of the keys, andthat a part is to be redeemed by means of satisfactions. They addfurther that satisfactions ought to be works of supererogation, andthey make these consist of most foolish observances, such aspilgrimages, rosaries, or similar observances which do not have thecommand of God. Then, just as they redeem purgatory by means ofsatisfactions, so a scheme of redeeming satisfactions which was mostabundant in revenue [which became quite a profitable, lucrativebusiness and a grand fair] was devised. For they sell [withoutshame] indulgences which they interpret as remissions ofsatisfactions. And this revenue [this trafficking, this fair, conducted so shamelessly] is not only from the living, but is muchmore ample from the dead. Nor do they redeem the satisfactions ofthe dead only by indulgences, but also by the sacrifice of the Mass. In a word, the subject of satisfactions is infinite. Among thesescandals (for we cannot enumerate all things) and doctrines of devilslies buried the doctrine of the righteousness of faith in Christ andthe benefit of Christ. Wherefore, all good men understand that thedoctrine of the sophists and canonists concerning repentance has beencensured for a useful and godly purpose. For the following dogmasare clearly false, and foreign not only to Holy Scripture, but alsoto the Church Fathers:-I. That from the divine covenant we meritgrace by good works wrought without grace. 

II. That by attrition we merit grace. 

III. That for the blotting out of sin the mere detestation of thecrime is sufficient. 

IV. That on account of contrition, and not by faith in Christ, weobtain remission of sins. 

V. That the power of the keys avails for the remission of sins, notbefore God, but before the Church. 

VI. That by the power of the keys sins are not remitted before God, but that the power of the keys has been instituted to commute eternalto temporal punishments, to impose upon consciences certainsatisfactions, to institute new acts of worship, and to obligateconsciences to such satisfactions and acts of worship. 

VII. That according to divine right the enumeration of offenses inconfession, concerning which the adversaries teach, is necessary. 

VIII. That canonical satisfactions are necessary for redeeming thepunishment of purgatory, or they profit as a compensation for theblotting out of guilt. For thus uninformed persons understand it. [For, although in the schools satisfactions are made to apply only tothe punishment, everybody thinks that remission of guilt is therebymerited. ]

IX. That the reception of the sacrament of repentance _ex opereoperato_, without a good disposition on the part of the one using it, i. E. , without faith in Christ, obtains grace. 

X. That by the power of the keys our souls are freed from purgatorythrough indulgences

XI. That in the reservation of cases not only canonical punishment, but the guilt also, ought to be reserved in reference to one who istruly converted. 

In order, therefore, to deliver pious consciences from theselabyrinths of the sophists, we have ascribed to repentance [orconversion] these two parts, namely, contrition and faith. If anyone desires to add a third namely, fruits worthy of repentance, i. E. , a change of the entire life and character for the better [good workswhich shall and must follow conversion], we will not make anyopposition. From contrition we separate those idle and infinitediscussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when fromfear of punishment. [For these are nothing but mere words and auseless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state ofmind of a terrified conscience. ] But we say that contrition is thetrue terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin, and which grieves that it has sinned. And this contrition takesplace in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God, because the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, toconvict of sin, and to offer for Christ's sake the remission of sinsand righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that asregenerate men we should do good works. Thus Christ comprises thesum of the Gospel when He says in the last chapter of Luke, v. 74:That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in My nameamong all nations. And of these terrors Scripture speaks, as Ps. 38, 4. 8: For mine iniquities are gone over mine head, as a heavy burdenthey are too heavy for me... I am feeble and sore broken; I haveroared by reason of the disquietness of My heart. And Ps. 6, 2. 3:Have mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak; O Lord, heal me; for mybones are vexed. My soul is also sore vexed; but Thou, O Lord howlong! And Is. 38, 10. 13: I said in the cutting off of my days, Ishall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue ofmy years.... I reckoned till morning that, as a lion, so will He breakall my bones. [Again, v. 14: Mine eyes fail with looking upward; 0Lord, I am oppressed. ] In these terrors, conscience feels the wrathof God against sin, which is unknown to secure men walking accordingto the flesh [as the sophists and their like]. It sees the turpitudeof sin, and seriously grieves that it has sinned; meanwhile it alsoflees from the dreadful wrath of God, because human nature, unlesssustained by the Word of God, cannot endure it. Thus Paul says, Gal. 2, 19: I through the Law am dead to the Law, For the Law only accusesand terrifies consciences. In these terrors our adversaries saynothing of faith, they present only the Word, which convicts of sin. When this is taught alone, it is the doctrine of the Law, not of theGospel. By these griefs and terrors, they say, men merit grace, provided they love God. But how will men love God in true terrorswhen they feel the terrible and inexpressible wrath of God What elsethan despair do those teach who in these terrors, display only theLaw?

We therefore add as the second part of repentance, Of Faith in Christ, that in these terrors the Gospel concerning Christ ought to be setforth to consciences, in which Gospel the remission of sins is freelypromised concerning Christ. Therefore, they ought to believe thatfor Christ's sake sins are freely remitted to them. This faithcheers, sustains, and quickens the contrite, according to Rom. 5, 1:Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. This faith obtainsthe remission of sins. This faith justifies before God, as the samepassage testifies: Being justified by faith. This faith shows thedistinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and ofDavid. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for thereason that to this there is not added this faith which apprehendsthe remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails because to itthere is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins grantedfor Christ's sake. Neither is love present before reconciliation hasbeen made by faith. For without Christ the Law [God's Law or theFirst Commandment] is not performed, according to [Eph. 2, 18; 3, 12]Rom. 5, 2: By Christ we have access to God. And this faith growsgradually and throughout the entire life, struggles with sin [istested by various temptations] in order to overcome sin and death. But love follows faith, as we have said above. And thus filial fearcan be clearly defined as such anxiety as has been connected withfaith, i. E. , where faith consoles and sustains the anxious heart. Itis servile fear when faith does not sustain the anxious heart [fearwithout faith, where there is nothing but wrath and doubt]. 

Moreover, the power of the keys administers and presents the Gospelthrough absolution, which [proclaims peace to me and] is the truevoice of the Gospel. Thus we also comprise absolution when we speakof faith, because faith cometh by hearing, as Paul says Rom. 10, 17. For when the Gospel is heard and the absolution [i. E. , the promise ofdivine grace] is heard, the conscience is encouraged and receivesconsolation. And because God truly quickens through the Word, thekeys truly remit sins before God [here on earth sins are trulycanceled in such a manner that they are canceled also before God inheaven] according to Luke 10, 10: He that heareth you heareth MeWherefore the voice of the one absolving must be believed nototherwise than we would believe a voice from heaven. And absolution[that blessed word of comfort] properly can be called a sacrament ofrepentance, as also the more learned scholastic theologians speak. Meanwhile this faith is nourished in a manifold way in temptations, through the declarations of the Gospel [the hearing of sermons, reading] and the use of the Sacraments. For these are [seals and]signs of [the covenant and grace in] the New Testament, i. E. , signsof [propitiation and] the remission of sins. They offer, therefore, the remission of sins, as the words of the Lord's Supper clearlytestify, Matt. 26, 26. 28: This is My body, which is given for you. This is the cup of the New Testament, etc. Thus faith is conceivedand strengthened through absolution, through the hearing of theGospel, through the use of the Sacraments, so that it may not succumbwhile it struggles with the terrors of sin and death. This method ofrepentance is plain and clear, and increases the worth of the powerof the keys and of the Sacraments, and illumines the benefit ofChrist, and teaches us to avail ourselves of Christ as Mediator andPropitiator. 

But as the Confutation condemns us for having assigned these twoparts to repentance, we must show that [not we, but] Scriptureexpresses these as the chief parts in repentance or conversion. ForChrist says Matt. 11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and areheavy laden, and I will give you rest. Here there are two members. The labor and the burden signify the contrition, anxiety, and terrorsof sin and of death. To come to Christ is to believe that sins areremitted for Christ's sake, when we believe, our hearts are quickenedby the Holy Ghost through the Word of Christ. Here, therefore, thereare these two chief parts, contrition and faith. And in Mark 1, 15Christ says: Repent ye and believe the Gospel, where in the firstmember He convicts of sins, in the latter He consoles us, and showsthe remission of sins. For to believe the Gospel is not that generalfaith which devils also have [is not only to believe the history ofthe Gospel], but in the proper sense it is to believe that theremission of sins has been granted for Christ's sake. For this isrevealed in the Gospel. You see also here that the two parts arejoined, contrition when sins are reproved and faith, when it is said:Believe the Gospel. If any one should say here that Christ includesalso the fruits of repentance or the entire new life, we shall notdissent. For this suffices us, that contrition and faith are namedas the chief parts. 

Paul almost everywhere, when he describes conversion or renewal, designates these two parts, mortification and quickening, as in Col. 2, 11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision madewithout hands, namely, by putting off the body of the sins of theflesh. And afterward, v. 12: Wherein also ye are risen with Himthrough the faith of the operation of God. Here are two parts. [Ofthese two parts he speaks plainly Rom. 6, 2. 4. 11, that we are deadto sin, which takes place by contrition and its terrors, and that weshould rise again with Christ, which takes place when by faith weagain obtain consolation and life. And since faith is to bringconsolation and peace into the conscience, according to Rom. 5, 1:Being justified by faith, we have peace, it follows that there isfirst terror and anxiety in the conscience. Thus contrition andfaith go side by side. ] One is putting off the body of sins; theother is the rising again through faith. Neither ought these words, mortification, quickening, putting off the body of sins, rising again, to be understood in a Platonic way, concerning a feigned change; butmortification signifies true terrors, such as those of the dying, which nature could not sustain unless it were supported by faith. Sohe names that as the putting off of the body of sins which weordinarily call contrition, because in these griefs the naturalconcupiscence is purged away. And quickening ought not to beunderstood as a Platonic fancy, but as consolation which trulysustains life that is escaping in contrition. Here, therefore, aretwo parts: contrition and faith. For as conscience cannot bepacified except by faith, therefore faith alone quickens, accordingto the declaration, Hab. 2, 4; Rom. 1, 17: The just shall live byfaith. 

And then in Col. 2, 14 it is said that Christ blots out thehandwriting which through the Law is against us. Here also there aretwo parts, the handwriting and the blotting out of the handwriting. The handwriting, however, is conscience, convicting and condemning us. The Law, moreover, is the word which reproves and condemns sins. Therefore, this voice which says, I have sinned against the Lord, asDavid says, 2 Sam. 12, 13, is the handwriting. And wicked and securemen do not seriously give forth this voice. For they do not see, they do not read the sentence of the Law written in the heart. Intrue griefs and terrors this sentence is perceived. Therefore thehandwriting which condemns us is contrition itself. To blot out thehandwriting is to expunge this sentence by which we declare that weshall be condemned, and to engrave the sentence according to which weknow that we have been freed from this condemnation. But faith isthe new sentence, which reverses the former sentence, and gives peaceand life to the heart. 

However, what need is there to cite many testimonies since they areeverywhere obvious in the Scriptures? Ps. 118, 18: The Lord hathchastened me sore, but He hath not given me over unto death. Ps. 119, 28: My soul melteth for heaviness; strengthen Thou me according untoThy word. Here, in the first member, contrition is contained, and inthe second the mode is clearly described how in contrition we arerevived, namely, by the Word of God which offers grace. Thissustains and quickens hearts. And 1 Sam. 2, 6 The Lord killeth andmaketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up. By oneof these, contrition is signified, by the other, faith is signified. And Is. 28, 21: The Lord shall be wroth that He may do His work, Hisstrange work, and bring to pass His act, His strange act. He callsit the strange work of the Lord when He terrifies because to quickenand console is God's own work. [Other works, as, to terrify and tokill, are not God's own works, for God only quickens. ] But Heterrifies, he says, for this reason, namely, that there may be aplace for consolation and quickening, because hearts that are secureand do not feel the wrath of God loathe consolation. In this mannerScripture is accustomed to join these two the terrors and theconsolation, in order to teach that in repentance there are thesechief members, contrition, and faith that consoles and justifies. Neither do we see how the nature of repentance can be presented moreclearly and simply. [We know with certainty that God thus works inHis Christians in the Church. ]

For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and tojustify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these twoworks all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is theGospel, i. E. , the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and thispromise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, firsthaving been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc. , Gen. 3, 15], afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed bythe prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christand disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. For all thesaints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their ownattrition or contrition. 

And the examples [how the saints became godly] show likewise thesetwo parts. After his sin Adam is reproved and becomes terrified, this was contrition. Afterward God promises grace, and speaks of afuture seed (the blessed seed, i. E. , Christ), by which the kingdom ofthe devil, death, and sin will be destroyed, there He offers theremission of sins. These are the chief things. For although thepunishment is afterwards added, yet this punishment does not meritthe remission of sin. And concerning this kind of punishment weshall speak after a while. 

So David is reproved by Nathan, and, terrified, he says, 2 Sam. 12, 13: I have sinned against the Lord. This is contrition. Afterwardhe hears the absolution: The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thoushalt not die. This voice encourages David, and by faith sustains, justifies, and quickens him. Here a punishment is also added, butthis punishment does not merit the remission of sins. Nor arespecial punishments always added, but in repentance these two thingsought always to exist, namely, contrition and faith, as Luke 7, 37. 38. The woman, who was a sinner, came to Christ weeping. By thesetears the contrition is recognized. Afterward she hears theabsolution: Thy sins are forgiven; thy faith hath saved thee; go inpeace. This is the second part of repentance, namely, faith, whichencourages and consoles her. From all these it is apparent to godlyreaders that we assign to repentance those parts which properlybelong to it in conversion, or regeneration, and the remission of sin. Worthy fruits and punishments [likewise, patience that we bewilling to bear the cross and punishments, which God lays upon theold Adam] follow regeneration and the remission of sin. For thisreason we have mentioned these two parts, in order that the faithwhich we require in repentance [of which the sophists and canonistshave all been silent] might be the better seen. And what that faithis which the Gospel proclaims can be better understood when it is setover against contrition and mortification. 

But as the adversaries expressly condemn our statement that menobtain the remission of sins by faith, we shall add a few proofs fromwhich it will be understood that the remission of sins is obtainednot _ex opere operato_ because of contrition, but by that specialfaith by which an individual believes that sins are remitted to him. For this is the chief article concerning which we are contending withour adversaries, and the knowledge of which we regard especiallynecessary to all Christians. As, however, it appears that we havespoken sufficiently above concerning the same subject, we shall herebe briefer. For very closely related are the topics of the doctrineof repentance and the doctrine of justification. 

When the adversaries speak of faith, and say that it precedesrepentance, they understand by faith, not that which justifies, butthat which, in a general way, believes that God exists, thatpunishments have been threatened to the wicked [that there is a hell], etc. In addition to this faith we require that each one believe thathis sins are remitted to him. Concerning this special faith we aredisputing, and we oppose it to the opinion which bids us trust not inthe promise of Christ, but in the _opus operatum_, of contrition, confession, and satisfactions, etc. This faith follows terrors insuch a manner as to overcome them, and render the conscience pacified. To this faith we ascribe justification and regeneration, inasmuchas it frees from terrors, and brings forth in the heart not onlypeace and joy, but also a new life. We maintain [with the help ofGod we shall defend to eternity and against all the gates of hell]that this faith is truly necessary for the remission of sins, andaccordingly place it among the parts of repentance. Nor does theChurch of Christ believe otherwise, although our adversaries [likemad dogs] contradict us. 

Moreover, to begin with, we ask the adversaries whether to receiveabsolution is a part of repentance, or not. But if they separate itfrom confession as they are subtile in making the distinction, we donot see of what benefit confession is without absolution. If, however, they do not separate the receiving of absolution fromconfession, it is necessary for them to hold that faith is a part ofrepentance, because absolution is not received except by faith. Thatabsolution, however is not received except by faith can be provedfrom Paul, who teaches Rom. 4, 16, that the promise cannot bereceived except by faith. But absolution is the promise of theremission of sins [nothing else than the Gospel, the divine promiseof God's grace and favor]. Therefore, it necessarily requires faith. Neither do we see how he who does not assent to it may be said toreceive absolution. And what else is the refusal to assent toabsolution but charging God with falsehood, If the heart doubts, itregards those things which God promises as uncertain and of noaccount. Accordingly, in 1 John 5, 10 it is written: He thatbelieveth not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not therecord that God gave of His Son. 

Secondly, we think that the adversaries acknowledge that theremission of sins is either a part, or the end, or, to speak in theirmanner, the _terminus ad quem_ of repentance. [For what doesrepentance help if the forgiveness of sins be not obtained?]Therefore that by which the remission of sins is received iscorrectly added to the parts [must certainly be the most prominentpart] of repentance. It is very certain, however, that even thoughall the gates of hell contradict us, yet the remission of sins cannotbe received except by faith alone, which believes that sins areremitted for Christ's sake, according to Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hathset forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. LikewiseRom. 5, 2: By whom also we have access by faith unto grace, etc. Fora terrified conscience cannot set against God's wrath our works orour love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ asMediator, and believes the promises given for His sake. For thosewho dream that without faith in Christ hearts become pacified, do notunderstand what the remission of sins is, or how it came to us. Peter, 1 Ep. 2, 6, cites from Is. 49, 23, and 28, 16: He thatbelieveth on Him shall not be confounded. It is necessary, therefore, that hypocrites be confounded, who are confident that they receivethe remission of sins because of their own works, and not because ofChrist. Peter also says in Acts 10, 43: To Him give all the prophetswitness that through His name whosoever believeth in Him, shallreceive remission of sins. What he says, through His name, could notbe expressed more clearly and he adds: Whosoever believeth in Him. Thus, therefore, we receive the remission of sins only through thename of Christ, i. E. , for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of anymerits and works of our own. And this occurs when we believe thatsins are remitted to us for Christ's sake. 

Our adversaries cry out that they are the Church, that they arefollowing the consensus of the Church [what the Church catholicuniversal, holds]. But Peter also here cites in our issue theconsensus of the Church: To Him give all the prophets witness, thatthrough His name, whosoever believeth in Him, shall receive remissionof sins, etc. The consensus of the prophets is assuredly to be judgedas the consensus of the Church universal. [I verily think that ifall the holy prophets are unanimously agreed in a declaration ( sinceGod regards even a single prophet as an inestimable treasure), itwould also be a decree, a declaration, and a unanimous strongconclusion of the universal, catholic, Christian, holy Church, andwould be justly regarded as such. ] We concede neither to the Pope norto the Church the power to make decrees against this consensus of theprophets. But the bull of Leo openly condemns this article, Of theRemission of Sins and the adversaries condemn it in the Confutation. From which it is apparent what sort of a Church we must judge that ofthese men to be, who not only by their decrees censure the doctrinethat we obtain the remission of sins by faith, not on account of ourworks, but on account of Christ, but who also give the command byforce and the sword to abolish it, and by every kind of cruelty [likebloodhounds] to put to death good men who thus believe. 

But they have authors of a great name Scotus, Gabriel, and the like, and passages of the Fathers which are cited in a mutilated form inthe decrees. Certainly, if the testimonies are to be counted, theywin. For there is a very great crowd of most trifling writers uponthe Sententiae, who, as though they had conspired, defend thesefigments concerning the merit of attrition and of works, and otherthings which we have above recounted. [Aye, it is true, they are allcalled teachers and authors, but by their singing you can tell whatsort of birds they are. These authors have taught nothing butphilosophy, and have known nothing of Christ and the work of God, their books show this plainly. ] But lest any one be moved by themultitude of citations, there is no great weight in the testimoniesof the later writers, who did not originate their own writings, butonly, by compiling from the writers before them, transferred theseopinions from some books into others. They have exercised nojudgment, but just like petty judges silently have approved theerrors of their superiors, which they have not understood. Let usnot, therefore, hesitate to oppose this utterance of Peter, whichcites the consensus of the prophets, to ever so many legions of theSententiaries. And to this utterance of Peter the testimony of theHoly Ghost is added. For the text speaks thus, Acts 10, 44: WhilePeter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them whichheard the Word. Therefore, let pious consciences know that thecommand of God is this that they believe that they are freelyforgiven for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of our works. Andby this command of God let them sustain themselves against despair, and against the terrors of sin and of death. And let them know thatthis belief has existed among saints from the beginning of the world. [Of this the idle sophists know little; and the blessed proclamation, the Gospel, which proclaims the forgiveness of sins through theblessed Seed, that is, Christ, has from the beginning of the worldbeen the greatest consolation and treasure to all pious kings allprophets, all believers. For they have believed in the same Christin whom we believe; for from the beginning of the world no saint hasbeen saved in any other way than through the faith of the same Gospel. ] For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and thewritings of the apostles testify that they believe the same thing. Nor are testimonies of the Fathers wanting. For Bernard says thesame thing in words that are in no way obscure: For it is necessaryfirst of all to believe that you cannot have remission of sins exceptby the indulgence of God, but add yet that you believe also this, namely, that through Him sins are forgiven thee. This is thetestimony which the Holy Ghost asserts in your heart, saying: "Thysins are forgiven thee. " For thus the apostle judges that man isjustified freely through faith. These words of Bernard shed awonderful light upon our cause, because he not only requires that wein a general way believe that sins are remitted through mercy but hebids us add special faith, by which we believe that sins are remittedeven to us; and he teaches how we may be rendered certain concerningthe remission of sins, namely when our hearts are encouraged by faith, and become tranquil through the Holy Ghost. What more do theadversaries require? [But how now, ye adversaries? Is St. Bernardalso a heretic?] Do they still dare deny that by faith we obtain theremission of sins, or that faith is a part of repentance?

Thirdly, the adversaries say that sin is remitted; because an attriteor contrite person elicits an act of love to God [if we undertakefrom reason to love God], and by this act merits to receive theremission of sins. This is nothing but to teach the Law, the Gospelbeing blotted out, and the promise concerning Christ being abolished. For they require only the Law and our works, because the Law demandslove. Besides they teach us to be confident that we obtain remissionof sins because of contrition and love. What else is this than toput confidence in our works, not in the Word and promise of Godconcerning Christ? But if the Law be sufficient for obtaining theremission of sins, what need is there of the Gospel? What need isthere of Christ if we obtain remission of sins because of our ownwork? We, on the other hand call consciences away from the Law tothe Gospel, and from confidence in their own works to confidence inthe promise and Christ, because the Gospel presents to us Christ, andpromises freely the remission of sins for Christ's sake. In thispromise it bids us trust, namely, that for Christ's sake we arereconciled to the Father, and not for the sake of our own contritionor love. For there is no other Mediator or Propitiator than Christ. Neither can we do the works of the Law unless we have first beenreconciled through Christ. And if we would do anything, yet we mustbelieve that not for the sake of these works, but for the sake ofChrist, as Mediator and Propitiator, we obtain the remission of sins. 

Yea, it is a reproach to Christ and a repeal of the Gospel to believethat we obtain the remission of sins on account of the Law, orotherwise than by faith in Christ. This method also we havediscussed above in the chapter Of Justification, where we declaredwhy we confess that men are justified by faith, not by love. Therefore the doctrine of the adversaries, when they teach that bytheir own contrition and love men obtain the remission of sins, andtrust in this contrition and love, is merely the doctrine of the Lawand of that, too, as not understood [which they do not understandwith respect to the kind of love towards God which it demands], justas the Jews looked upon the veiled face of Moses. For let us imaginethat love is present, let us imagine that works are present, yetneither love nor works can a propitiation for sin [or be of as muchvalue as Christ]. And they cannot even be opposed to the wrath andjudgment of God, according to Ps. 143, 2: Enter not into judgmentwith Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. Neither ought the honor of Christ to be transferred to our works. 

For these reasons Paul contends that we are not justified by the Law, and he opposes to the Law the promise of the remission of sins whichis granted for Christ's sake and teaches that we freely receive theremission of sins for Christ's sake. Paul calls us away from the Lawto this promise. Upon this promise he bids us look [and regard theLord Christ our treasure], which certainly will be void if we arejustified by the Law before we are justified through the promise, orif we obtain the remission of sins on account of our ownrighteousness. But it is evident that the promise was given us andChrist was tendered to us for the very reason that we cannot do theworks of the Law. Therefore it is necessary that we are reconciledby the promise before we do the works of the Law. The promise, however, is received only by faith. Therefore it is necessary forcontrite persons to apprehend by faith the promise of the remissionof sins granted for Christ's sake, and to be confident that freelyfor Christ's sake they have a reconciled Father. This is the meaningof Paul, Rom. 4, 13, where he says: Therefore it is of faith that itmight be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure. And Gal. 3, 22: The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise byfaith of Jesus Christ might be given them that believe, i. E. , all areunder sin, neither can they be freed otherwise than by apprehendingby faith the promise of the remission of sins. Therefore we must byfaith accept the remission of sins before we do the works of the Law, although, as has been said above, love follows faith, because theregenerate receive the Holy Ghost, and accordingly begin [to becomefriendly to the Law and] to do the works of the Law. 

We would cite more testimonies if they were not obvious to everygodly reader in the Scriptures. And we do not wish to be too prolix, in order that this ease may be the more readily seen through. Neither, indeed, is there any doubt that the meaning of Paul is whatwe are defending, namely, that by faith we receive the remission ofsins for Christ's sake, that by faith we ought to oppose to God'swrath Christ as Mediator, and not our works. Neither let godly mindsbe disturbed, even though the adversaries find fault with thejudgments of Paul. Nothing is said so simply that it cannot bedistorted by caviling. We know that what we have mentioned is thetrue and genuine meaning of Paul, we know that this our belief bringsto godly consciences [in agony of death and temptation] sure comfort, without which no one can in God's judgment. 

Therefore let these pharisaic opinions of the adversaries be rejected, namely, that we do not receive by faith the remission of sins, butthat it ought to be merited by our love and works; that we ought tooppose our love and our works to the wrath of God. Not of the Gospel, but of the Law is this doctrine, which feigns that man is justifiedby the Law before he has been reconciled through Christ to God, sinceChrist says, John 15, 5: With out Me, ye can do nothing; likewise: Iam the true Vine; ye are the branches. But the adversaries feignthat we are branches, not of Christ, but of Moses. For they wish tobe justified by the Law, and to offer their love and works to Godbefore they are reconciled to God through Christ, before they arebranches of Christ. Paul, on the other hand [who is certainly a muchgreater teacher than the adversaries], contends that the Law cannotbe observed without Christ. Accordingly, in order that we [those whotruly feel and have experienced sin and anguish of conscience mustcling to the promise of grace, in order that they] may be reconciledto God for Christ's sake, the promise must be received before we dothe works of the Law. We think that these things are sufficientlyclear to godly consciences. And hence they will understand why wehave declared above that men are justified by faith, not by love, because we must oppose to God's wrath not our love or works (or trustin our love and works), but Christ as Mediator [for all our ability, all our deeds and works, are far too weak to remove and appease God'swrath]. And we must apprehend the promise of the remission of sinsbefore we do the works of the Law. 

Lastly, when will conscience be pacified if we receive remission ofsins on the ground that we love, or that we do the works of the Law?For the Law will always accuse us, because we never satisfy God's Law. Just as Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath. Chrysostomasks concerning repentance, Whence are we made sure that our sins areremitted us? The adversaries also, in their "Sentences, " askconcerning the same subject. [The question, verily, is worth askingblessed the man that returns the right answer. ] This cannot beexplained, consciences cannot be made tranquil, unless they know thatit is God's command and the very Gospel that they should be firmlyconfident that for Christ's sake sins are remitted freely, and thatthey should not doubt that these are remitted to them. If any onedoubts, he charges, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10, the divine promisewith falsehood. We teach that this certainty of faith is required inthe Gospel. The adversaries leave consciences uncertain and wavering. Consciences, however do nothing from faith when they perpetuallydoubt whether they have remission. [For it is not possible thatthere should be rest, or a quiet and peaceful conscience, if theydoubt whether God be gracious. For if they doubt whether they have agracious God, whether they are doing right, whether they haveforgiveness of sins, how can, etc. ] How can they in this doubt callupon God, how can they be confident that they are heard? Thus theentire life is without God [faith] and without the true worship ofGod. This is what Paul says, Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faithis sin. And because they are constantly occupied with this doubt, they never experience what faith [God or Christ] is. Thus it comesto pass that they rush at last into despair [die in doubt, withoutGod, without all knowledge of God]. Such is the doctrine of theadversaries, the doctrine of the Law, the annulling of the Gospel, the doctrine of despair. [Whereby Christ is suppressed, men are ledinto overwhelming sorrow and torture of conscience, and finally, whentemptation comes, into despair. Let His Imperial Majesty graciouslyconsider and well examine this matter, it does not concern gold orsilver but souls and consciences. ] Now we are glad to refer to allgood men the judgment concerning this topic of repentance (for it hasno obscurity), in order that they may decide whether we or theadversaries have taught those things which are more godly andhealthful to consciences. Indeed, these dissensions in the Church donot delight us; wherefore, if we did not have great and necessaryreasons for dissenting from the adversaries, we would with thegreatest pleasure be silent. But now, since they condemn themanifest truth, it is not right for us to desert a cause which is notour own, but is that of Christ and the Church. [We cannot withfidelity to God and conscience deny this blessed doctrine and divinetruth, from which we expect at last, when this poor temporal lifeceases and all help of creatures fails, the only eternal, highestconsolation: nor will we in anything recede from this cause, which isnot only ours, but that of all Christendom, and concerns the highesttreasure, Jesus Christ. ]

We have declared for what reasons we assigned to repentance these twoparts, contrition and faith. And we have done this the more readilybecause many expressions concerning repentance are published whichare cited in a mutilated form from the Fathers [Augustine and theother ancient Fathers], and which the adversaries have distorted inorder to put faith out of sight. Such are: Repentance is to lamentpast evils, and not to commit again deeds that ought to be lamented. Again: Repentance is a kind of vengeance of him who grieves, thuspunishing in himself what he is sorry for having committed. In thesepassages no mention is made of faith. And not even in the schools, when they interpret, is anything added concerning faith. Therefore, in order that the doctrine of faith might be the more conspicuous, wehave enumerated it among the parts of repentance. For the actualfact shows that those passages which require contrition or good works, and make no mention of justifying faith, are dangerous [asexperience proves]. And prudence can justly be desired in those whohave collected these centos of the "Sentences" and decrees. Forsince the Fathers speak in some places concerning one part, and inother places concerning another part of repentance, it would havebeen well to select and combine their judgments not only concerningone part, but concerning both, i. E. , concerning contrition and faith. 

For Tertullian speaks excellently concerning faith, dwelling upon theoath in the prophet, Ezek. 33, 11: As I live, saith the Lord God, Ihave no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turnfrom his way and live. For as God swears that He does not wish thedeath of a sinner, He shows that faith is required, in order that wemay believe the one swearing, and be firmly confident that Heforgives us. The authority of the divine promises ought by itself tobe great in our estimation. But this promise has also been confirmedby an oath. Therefore, if any one be not confident that he isforgiven, he denies that God has sworn what is true, than which amore horrible blasphemy cannot be imagined. For Tertullian speaksthus: He invites by reward to salvation, even swearing. Saying, "Ilive, " He desires that He be believed. Oh, blessed we, for whosesake God swears! Oh, most miserable if we believe not the Lord evenwhen He swears! But here we must know that this faith ought to beconfident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for thesake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition, confession, or satisfactions. For if faith relies upon these works, it immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified consciencesees that these works are unworthy. Accordingly, Ambrose speaksadmirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us tobelieve both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned, but so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from ahandwriting. Again: It is faith which covers our sins. Thereforethere are sentences extant in the Fathers, not only concerningcontrition and works, but also concerning faith. But the adversaries, since they understand neither the nature of repentance nor thelanguage of the Fathers, select passages concerning a part ofrepentance, namely, concerning works; they pass over the declarationsmade elsewhere concerning faith, since they do not understand them. 

Part 16

Article VI: _Of Confession and Satisfaction. _

Good men can easily judge that it is of the greatest importance thatthe true doctrine concerning the abovementioned parts, namely, contrition and faith, be preserved. [For the great fraud ofindulgences, etc. , and the preposterous doctrines of the sophistshave sufficiently taught us what great vexation and danger arisetherefrom if a foul stroke is here made. How many a godly conscienceunder the Papacy sought with great labor the true way, and in themidst of such darkness did not find it!] Therefore, we have alwaysbeen occupied more with the elucidation of these topics, and havedisputed nothing as yet concerning confession and satisfaction. Forwe also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution, as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of thekeys pronounces upon individuals. Therefore it would be wicked toremove private absolution from the Church. Neither do theyunderstand what the remission of sins or the power of the keys is, ifthere are any who despise private absolution. But in reference tothe enumeration of offenses in confession, we have said above that wehold that it is not necessary by divine right. For the objection, made by some, that a judge ought to investigate a ease before hepronounces upon it, pertains in no way to this subject; because theministry of absolution is favor or grace, it is not a legal process, or law. [For God is the Judge, who has committed to the apostles, not the office of judges, but the administration of grace namely, toacquit those who desire, etc. ] Therefore ministers in the Church havethe command to remit sin, they have not the command to investigatesecret sins. And indeed, they absolve from those that we do notremember; for which reason absolution, which is the voice of theGospel remitting sins and consoling consciences, does not requirejudicial examination. 

And it is ridiculous to transfer hither the saying of Solomon, Prov. 27, 23: Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks. ForSolomon says nothing of confession, but gives to the father of afamily a domestic precept, that he should use what is his own, andabstain from what is another's, and he commands him to take care ofhis own property diligently, yet in such a way that, with his mindoccupied with the increase of his resources, he should not cast awaythe fear of God, or faith or care in God's Word. But our adversaries, by a wonderful metamorphosis, transform passages of Scripture towhatever meaning they please. [They produce from the Scripturesblack and white, as they please, contrary to the natural meaning ofthe clear words. ] Here to know signifies with them to hearconfessions, the state, not the outward life, but the secrets ofconscience; and the flocks signify men. [Sable, we think means aschool within which there are such doctors and orators. But it hashappened aright to those who thus despise the Holy Scriptures and allfine arts that they make gross mistakes in grammar. ] Theinterpretation is assuredly neat, and is worthy of these despisers ofthe pursuits of eloquence. But if any one desires by a similitude totransfer a precept from a father of a family to a pastor of a Church, he ought certainly to interpret "state" [V. _vultus_, countenance] asapplying to the outward life. This similitude will be moreconsistent. 

But let us omit such matters as these. At different times in thePsalms mention is made of confession, as, Ps. 32, 5: I said, I willconfess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest theiniquity of my sin. Such confession of sin which is made to God iscontrition itself. For when confession is made to God, it must bemade with the heart not alone with the voice, as is made on the stageby actors. Therefore, such confession is contrition, in which, feeling God's wrath, we confess that God is justly angry, and that Hecannot be appeased by our works, and nevertheless we seek for mercybecause of God's promise. Such is the following confession, Ps. 51, 4: Against Thee only have I sinned, that Thou mightest be justifiedand be clear when Thou judgest, i. E. , "I confess that I am a sinner, and have merited eternal wrath, nor can I set my righteousnesses, mymerits, against Thy wrath; accordingly, I declare that Thou art justwhen Thou condemnest and punishest us, I declare that Thou art clearwhen hypocrites judge Thee to be unjust in punishing them or incondemning the well-deserving. Yea, our merits cannot be opposed toThy judgment but we shall thus be justified, namely, if Thoujustifiest us, if through Thy mercy Thou accountest us righteous. "Perhaps some one may also cite Jas. 5, 16: Confess your faults one toanother. But here the reference is not to confession that is to bemade to the priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliationof brethren to each other. For it commands that the confession bemutual. 

Again, our adversaries will condemn many most generally receivedteachers if they will contend that in confession an enumeration ofoffenses is necessary according to divine Law. For although weapprove of confession, and judge that some examination is ofadvantage in order that men may be the better instructed [young andinexperienced persons be questioned], yet the matter must be socontrolled that snares are not cast upon consciences, which neverwill be tranquil if they think that they cannot obtain the remissionof sins unless this precise enumeration be made. That which theadversaries have expressed in the _Confutation_ is certainly mostfalse, namely, that a full confession is necessary for salvation. For this is impossible. And what snares they here cast upon theconscience when they require a full confession! For when willconscience be sure that the confession is complete? In theChurch-writers mention is made of confession, but they do not speakof this enumeration of secret offenses, but of the rite of publicrepentance. For as the fallen or notorious [those guilty of publiccrimes] were not received without fixed satisfactions [without apublic ceremony or reproof], they made confession on this account tothe presbyters, in order that satisfactions might be prescribed tothem according to the measure of their offenses. This entire mattercontained nothing similar to the enumeration concerning which we aredisputing. This confession was made, not because the remission ofsins before God could not occur without it, but because satisfactionscould not be prescribed unless the kind of offense were first known. For different offenses had different canons. 

And from this rite of public repentance there has been left the word"satisfaction. " For the holy Fathers were unwilling to receive thefallen or the notorious, unless as far as it was possible, theirrepentance had been first examined into and exhibited publicly. Andthere seem to have been many causes for this. For to chastise thosewho had fallen served as an example, just as also the gloss upon thedegrees admonishes, and it was improper immediately to admitnotorious men to the communion [without their being tested]. Thesecustoms have long since grown obsolete. Neither is it necessary torestore them, because they are not necessary for the remission ofsins before God. Neither did the Fathers hold this, namely, that menmerit the remission of sins through such customs or such works, although these spectacles [such outward ceremonies] usually leadastray the ignorant to think that by these works they merit theremission of sins before God. But if any one thus holds, he holds tothe faith of a Jew and heathen. For also the heathen had certainexpiations for offenses through which they imagined to be reconciledto God. Now, however, although the custom has become obsolete, thename satisfaction still remains, and a trace of the custom alsoremains of prescribing in confession certain satisfactions, whichthey define as works that are not due. We call them canonicalsatisfactions. Of these we hold, just as of the enumeration, thatcanonical satisfactions [these public ceremonies] are not necessaryby divine Law for the remission of sins, just as those ancientexhibitions of satisfactions in public repentance were not necessaryby divine Law for the remission of sins. For the belief concerningfaith must be retained, that by faith we obtain remission of sins forChrist's sake, and not for the sake of our works that precede orfollow [when we are converted or born anew in Christ]. And for thisreason we have discussed especially the question of satisfactions, that by submitting to them the righteousness of faith be not obscured, or men think that for the sake of these works they obtain remissionof sins. And many sayings that are current in the schools aid theerror, such as that which they give in the definition of satisfaction, namely, that it is wrought for the purpose of appeasing the divinedispleasure. 

But, nevertheless, the adversaries acknowledge that satisfactions areof no profit for the remission of guilt. Yet they imagine thatsatisfactions are of profit in redeeming from the punishments, whether of purgatory or other punishments. For thus they teach thatin the remission of sins, God [without means, alone] remits the guilt, and yet, because it belongs to divine justice to punish sin, that Hecommutes eternal into temporal punishment. They add further that apart of this temporal punishment is remitted by the power of the keys, but that the rest is redeemed by means of satisfactions. Neithercan it be understood of what punishments a part is remitted by thepower of the keys, unless they say that a part of the punishments ofpurgatory is remitted, from which it would follow that satisfactionsare only punishments redeeming from purgatory. And thesesatisfactions, they say, avail even though they are rendered by thosewho have relapsed into mortal sin, as though indeed the divinedispleasure could be appeased by those who are in mortal sin. Thisentire matter is fictitious, and recently fabricated without theauthority of Scripture and the old writers of the Church. And noteven Longobardus speaks in this way of satisfactions. Thescholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the Church; and theydid not notice that these exhibitions had been instituted both forthe purpose of example, and for testing those who desired to bereceived by the Church. In a word, they did not see that it was adiscipline, and entirely a secular matter. Accordingly, theysuperstitiously imagined that these avail not for discipline beforethe Church, but for appeasing God. And just as in other places theyfrequently, with great inaptness, have confounded spiritual and civilmatters [the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, and the kingdomof the world, and external discipline], the same happens also withregard to satisfactions. But the gloss on the canons at variousplaces testifies that these observances were instituted for the sakeof church discipline [should serve alone for an example before theChurch]. 

Let us see, moreover, how in the Confutation which they had thepresumption to obtrude upon His Imperial Majesty, they prove thesefigments of theirs. They cite many passages from the Scriptures, inorder to impose upon the inexperienced, as though this subject whichwas unknown even in the time of Longobard, had authority from theScriptures. They bring forward such passages as these: Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance, Matt. 3, 8, Mark 1, 15. Again:Yield your members servants to righteousness Rom. 6, 19. Again, Christ preaches repentance, Matt. 4, 17: Repent. Again, Christ Luke24, 47, commands the apostles to preach repentance, and Peterpreaches repentance Acts 2, 38. Afterward they cite certain passagesof the Fathers and the canons, and conclude that satisfactions in theChurch are not to be abolished contrary to the plain Gospel and thedecrees of the Councils and Fathers [against the decision of the HolyChurch]; nay, even that those who have been absolved by the priestought to bring to perfection the repentance that has been enjoined, following the declaration of Paul, Titus 2, 14: Who gave Himself forus that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himselfa peculiar people, zealous of good works. 

May God put to confusion these godless sophists who so wickedlydistort God's Word to their own most vain dreams! What good man isthere who is not moved by such indignity?" Christ says, Repent, theapostles preach repentance; therefore eternal punishments arecompensated by the punishments of purgatory; therefore the keys havethe power to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; thereforesatisfactions redeem the punishments of purgatory"! Who has taughtthese asses such logic? Yet this is neither logic nor sophistry, butcunning trickery. Accordingly, they appeal to the expression repentin such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage citedagainst us they may derive the opinion that we deny the entirerepentance. By these arts they endeavor to alienate minds and toenkindle hatred, so that the inexperienced may cry out against us[Crucify! crucify!], that such pestilent heretics as disapprove ofrepentance should be removed from their midst. [Thus they arepublicly convicted of being liars in this matter. ]

But we hope that among good men these calumnies [andmisrepresentations of Holy Scripture] may make little headway. AndGod will not long endure such impudence and wickedness. [They willcertainly be consumed by the First and Second Commandments. ] Neitherhas the Pope of Rome consulted well for his own dignity in employingsuch patrons, because he has entrusted a matter of the greatestimportance to the judgment of these sophists. For since we includein the Confession almost the sum of the entire Christian doctrine, judges should have been appointed to make a declaration concerningmatters so important and so many and various, whose learning andfaith would have been more approved than that of these sophists whohave written this Confutation. It was particularly becoming for you, O Campegius, in accordance with your wisdom, to have taken care thatin regard to matters of such importance they should write nothingwhich either at this time or with posterity might seem to be able todiminish regard for the Roman See. If the Roman See judges it rightthat all nations should acknowledge her as mistress of the faith, sheought to take pains that learned and uncorrupt men make investigationconcerning matters of religion. For what will the world judge if atany time the writing of the adversaries be brought to light? Whatwill posterity judge concerning these reproachful judicialinvestigations? You see, O Campegius, that these are the last times, in which Christ predicted that there would be the greatest danger toreligion. You, therefore, who ought, as it were, to sit on thewatch-tower and control religious matters, should in these timesemploy unusual wisdom and diligence. There are many signs which, unless you heed them, threaten a change to the Roman state. And youmake a mistake if you think that Churches should be retained only byforce and arms. Men ask to be taught concerning religion. How manydo you suppose there are, not only in Germany, but also in England, in Spain, in France, in Italy, and finally even in the city of Rome, who, since they see that controversies have arisen concerning of thegreatest importance, are beginning here and there to doubt, and to besilently indignant that you refuse to investigate and judge arightsubjects of such weight as these; that you do not deliver waveringconsciences; that you only bid us be overthrown and annihilated byarms? There are many good men to whom this doubt is more bitter thandeath. You do not consider sufficiently how great a subject religionis, if you think that good men are in anguish for a slight causewhenever they begin to doubt concerning any dogma. And this doubtcan have no other effect than to produce the greatest bitterness ofhatred against those who, when they ought to heal consciences, plantthemselves in the way of the explanation of the subject. We do nothere say that you ought to fear God's judgment. For the hierarchsthink that they can easily provide against this, for since they holdthe keys, of course they can open heaven for themselves whenever theywish. We are speaking of the judgments of men and the silent desiresof all nations, which, indeed, at this time require that thesematters be investigated and decided in such a manner that good mindsmay be healed and freed from doubt. For, in accordance with yourwisdom, you can easily decide what will take place if at any timethis hatred against you should break forth. But by this favor youwill be able to bind to yourself all nations, as all sane men regardit as the highest and most important matter, if you heal doubtingconsciences. We have said these things not because we doubtconcerning our Confession. For we know that it is true, godly, anduseful to godly consciences. But it is likely that there are many inmany places who waver concerning matters of no light importance, andyet do not hear such teachers as are able to heal their consciences. 

But let us return to the main point. The Scriptures cited by theadversaries speak in no way of canonical satisfactions, and of theopinions of the scholastics, since it is evident that the latter wereonly recently born. Therefore it is pure slander when they distortScripture to their own opinions. We say that good fruits, good worksin every kind of life, ought to follow repentance, i. E. , conversionor regeneration [the renewal of the Holy Ghost in the heart]. Neither can there be true conversion or true contrition wheremortifications of the flesh and good fruits do not follow [if we donot externally render good works and Christian patience]. Trueterrors, true griefs of mind, do not allow the body to indulge insensual pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God, neitherdoes it despise God's commandments. In a word, there is no innerrepentance unless it also produces outwardly mortifications of theflesh. We say also that this is the meaning of John when he says, Matt. 3, 8: Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance. Likewise of Paul when he says Rom. 6, 19: Yield your members servantsto righteousness; just as he likewise says elsewhere, Rom. 12, 1:Present your bodies a living sacrifice, etc. And when Christ saysMatt. 4, 17: Repent, He certainly speaks of the entire repentance, ofthe entire newness of life and its fruits, He does not speak of thosehypocritical satisfactions which, the scholastics avail forcompensating the punishment of purgatory or other punishments whenthey are made by those who are in mortal sin. 

Many arguments, likewise, can be collected to show that thesepassages of Scripture pertain in no way to scholastic satisfactions. These men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due[which we are not obliged to do]; but Scripture, in these passages, requires works that are due [which we are obliged to do]. For thisword of Christ, Repent, is the word of a commandment. Likewise theadversaries write that if any one who goes to confession shouldrefuse to undertake satisfactions, he does not sin, but will paythese penalties in purgatory. Now the following passages are, without controversy, precepts pertaining to this life: Repent; Bringforth fruits meet for repentance; Yield your members servants torighteousness. Therefore they cannot be distorted to thesatisfactions which it is permitted to refuse. For to refuse God'scommandments is not permitted. [For God's commands are not thus leftto our discretion. ] Thirdly, indulgences remit these satisfactions, as is taught by the Chapter, _De Poenitentiis et Remissione_, beginning _Quum ex eo_, etc. But indulgences do not free us from thecommandments: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Therefore it is manifest that these passages of Scripture have beenwickedly distorted to apply to canonical satisfactions. See furtherwhat follows. If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, orsatispassions [sufferings sufficient], or if satisfactions are aredemption of the punishments of purgatory, do these passages alsogive commandment that souls be punished in purgatory? [Theabove-cited passages of Christ and Paul must also show and prove thatsouls enter purgatory and there suffer pain. ] Since this must followfrom the opinions of the adversaries, these passages should beinterpreted in a new way [these passages should put on new coats]:Bring forth fruits meet for repentance; Repent, i. E. , suffer thepunishments of purgatory after this life. But we do not care aboutrefuting in more words these absurdities of the adversaries. For itis evident that Scripture speaks of works that are due, of the entirenewness of life, and not of these observances of works that are notdue, of which the adversaries speak. And yet, by these figments theydefend orders [of monks], the sale of Masses and infinite observances, namely, as works which, if they do not make satisfaction for guilt, yet make satisfaction for punishment. 

Since, therefore, the passages of Scripture cited do not say thateternal punishments are to be compensated by works that are not due, the adversaries are rash in affirming that these satisfactions arecompensated by canonical satisfactions. Nor do the keys have thecommand to commute some punishments, and likewise to remit a part ofthe punishments. For where are such things [dreams and lies] read inthe Scriptures? Christ speaks of the remission of sins when He saysMatt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall loose, etc. [i. E. ], sin beingforgiven, death eternal is taken away, and life eternal bestowed. Nor does Whatsoever ye shall bind speak of the imposing ofpunishments, but of retaining the sins of those who are not converted. Moreover, the declaration of Longobard concerning remitting a partof the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; apart of these the pastors remitted. Although, we hold thatrepentance ought to bring forth good fruits for the sake of God'sglory and command, and good fruits, true fastings, true prayers, truealms, etc. , have the commands of God, yet in the Holy Scriptures wenowhere find this, namely, that eternal punishments are not remittedexcept on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonicalsatisfactions, i. E. , on account of certain works not due, or that thepower of the keys has the command to commute their punishments or toremit a portion. These things the adversaries were to prove. [Thisthey will not attempt. ]

Besides, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt, but also for eternal death, according to Hos. 13, 14: 0 death, I willbe thy death. How monstrous, therefore, it is to say that thesatisfaction of Christ redeemed from the guilt, and our punishmentsredeem from eternal death, as the expression, I will be thy death, ought then to be understood, not concerning Christ, but concerningour works, and, indeed, not concerning the works commanded by God, but concerning some frigid observances devised by men! And these aresaid to abolish death, even when they are wrought in mortal sin. Itis incredible with what grief we recite these absurdities of theadversaries, which cannot but cause one who considers them to beenraged against such doctrines of demons, which the devil has spreadin the Church in order to suppress the knowledge of the Law andGospel, of repentance and quickening, and the benefits of Christ. For of the Law they speak thus: "God, condescending to our weakness, has given to man a measure of those things to which of necessity heis bound and this is the observance of precepts, so that from what isleft, i. E. , from works of supererogation, he can render satisfactionwith reference to offenses that have been committed. " Here menimagine that they can observe the Law of God in such a manner as tobe able to do even more than the Law exacts. But Scriptureeverywhere exclaims that we are far distant from the perfection whichthe Law requires. Yet these men imagine that the Law of God has beencomprised in outward and civil righteousness; they do not see that itrequires true love to God "with the whole heart, " etc. , and condemnsthe entire concupiscence in the nature. Therefore no one does asmuch as the Law requires. Hence their imagination that we can domore is ridiculous. For although we can perform outward works notcommanded by God's Law [which Paul calls beggarly ordinances], yetthe confidence that satisfaction is rendered God's Law [yea, thatmore is done than God demands] is vain and wicked. And true prayers, true alms, true fastings, have God's command; and where they haveGod's command, they cannot without sin be omitted. But these works, in so far as they have not been commanded by God's Law, but have afixed form derived from human rule are works of human traditions ofwhich Christ says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me with thecommandments of men, such as certain fasts appointed not forrestraining the flesh, but that, by this work, honor may be given toGod, as Scotus says, and eternal death be made up for; likewise, afixed number of prayers, a fixed measure of alms when they arerendered in such a way that this measure is a worship _ex opereoperato_ giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death. Forthey ascribe satisfaction to these _ex opere operato_, because theyteach that they avail even in those who are in mortal sin. There areworks which depart still farther from God's commands, as [rosariesand] pilgrimages; and of these there is a great variety: one makes ajourney [to St. Jacob] clad in mail, and another with bare feet. Christ calls these "vain acts of worship, " and hence they do notserve to appease God's displeasure, as the adversaries say. And yetthey adorn these works with magnificent titles; they call them worksof supererogation, to them the honor is ascribed of being a pricepaid instead of eternal death. Thus they are preferred to the worksof God's commandments [the true works expressly mentioned in the TenCommandments]. In this way the Law of God is obscured in two ways, one, because satisfaction is thought to be rendered God's Law bymeans of outward and civil works, the other, because human traditionsare added whose works are preferred to the works of the divine Law. 

Part 17

In the second place, repentance and grace are obscured. For eternaldeath is not atoned for by this compensation of works because it isidle, and does not in the present life taste of death. Somethingelse must be opposed to death when it tries us. For just as thewrath of God is overcome by faith in Christ, so death is overcome byfaith in Christ. Just as Paul says, 1 Cor. 16, 67: But thanks be toGod which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Hedoes not say: "Who giveth us the victory if we oppose oursatisfactions against death. " The adversaries treat of idlespeculations concerning the remission of guilt, and do not see how inthe remission of guilt, the heart is freed by faith in Christ fromGod's anger and eternal death. Since, therefore, the death of Christis a satisfaction for eternal death, and since the adversariesthemselves confess that these works of satisfactions are works thatare not due, but are works of human traditions, of which Christ says, Matt. 16, 9, that they are vain acts of worship, we can safely affirmthat canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine Law for theremission of guilt, or eternal punishment, or the punishment ofpurgatory. 

But the adversaries object that vengeance or punishment is necessaryfor repentance, because Augustine says that repentance is vengeancepunishing, etc.. We grant that vengeance or punishment is necessaryin repentance, yet not as merit or price, as the adversaries imaginethat satisfactions are. But vengeance is in repentance formally, i. E. , because regeneration itself occurs by a perpetual mortification ofthe oldness of life. The saying of Scotus may indeed be verybeautiful, that _poenitentia_ is so called because it is, as it were, _poenae tenentia_, holding to punishment. But of what punishment, ofwhat vengeance, does Augustine speak? Certainly of true punishment, of true vengeance, namely, of contrition, of true terrors. Nor do wehere exclude the outward mortifications of the body, which followtrue grief of mind. The adversaries make a great mistake if theyimagine that canonical satisfactions [their juggler's tricks, rosaries, pilgrimages, and such like] are more truly punishments thanare true terrors in the heart. It is most foolish to distort thename of punishment to these frigid satisfactions, and not to referthem to those horrible terrors of conscience of which David says, Ps. 18, 4; 2 Sam. 22, 5: The sorrows of death compassed me. Who wouldnot rather, clad in mail and equipped, seek the church of James, thebasilica of Peter, etc. , than bear that ineffable violence of griefwhich exists even in persons of ordinary lives, if there be truerepentance?

But they say that it belongs to God's justice to punish sin. Hecertainly punishes it in contrition, when in these terrors He showsHis wrath. Just as David indicates when he prays, Ps. 6, 1: 0 Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger. And Jeremiah, 10, 24: 0 Lord, correctme, but with judgment; not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me tonothing. Here indeed the most bitter punishments are spoken of. Andthe adversaries acknowledge that contrition can be so great thatsatisfaction is not required. Contrition is therefore more truly apunishment than is satisfaction. Besides, saints are subject todeath, and all general afflictions, as Peter says, 1 Ep. 4, 17: Forthe time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and ifit first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not theGospel of God? And although these afflictions are for the most partthe punishments of sin, yet in the godly they have a better end, namely, to exercise them, that they may learn amidst trials to seekGod's aid, to acknowledge the distrust of their own hearts, etc. , asPaul says of himself, 2 Cor. 1, 9: But we had the sentence of deathin ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God whichraiseth the dead. And Isaiah says, 26, 16: They poured out prayerwhen Thy chastening was upon them i. E. , afflictions are a disciplineby which God exercises the saints. Likewise afflictions areinflicted because of present sin, since in the saints they mortifyand extinguish concupiscence, so that they may be renewed by theSpirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 10: The body is dead because of sin, i. E. , it is mortified [more and more every day] because of present sinwhich is still left in the flesh. And death itself serves thispurpose, namely, to abolish this flesh of sin, that we may riseabsolutely new. Neither is there now in the death of the believer, since by faith he has overcome the terrors of death, that sting andsense of wrath of which Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15, 56: The sting of deathis sin; and the strength of sin is the Law. This strength of sin, this sense of wrath, is truly a punishment as long as it is present;without this sense of wrath, death is not properly a punishment. Moreover, canonical satisfactions do not belong to these punishments;as the adversaries say that by the power of the keys a part of thepunishments is remitted. Likewise, according to these very men, thekeys remit the satisfactions, and the punishments on account of whichthe satisfactions are made. But it is evident that the commonafflictions are not removed by the power of the keys. And if theywish to be understood concerning punishments, why do they add thatsatisfaction is to be rendered in purgatory?

They oppose the example of Adam, and also of David, who was punishedfor his adultery. From these examples they derive the universal rulethat peculiar temporal punishments in the remission of sinscorrespond to individual sins. It has been said before that saintssuffer punishments, which are works of God; they suffer contrition orterrors, they also suffer other common afflictions. Thus, forexample, some suffer punishments of their own that have been imposedby God. And these punishments pertain in no way to the keys becausethe keys neither can impose nor remit them, but God, without theministry of the keys, imposes and remits them [as He will]. 

Neither does the universal rule follow: Upon David a peculiarpunishment was imposed, therefore, in addition to common afflictions, there is another punishment of purgatory, in which each degreecorresponds to each sin. Where does Scripture teach that we cannotbe freed from eternal death except by the compensation of certainpunishments in addition to common afflictions? But, on the otherhand, it most frequently teaches that the remission of sins occursfreely for Christ's sake, that Christ is the Victor of sin and death. Therefore the merit of satisfaction is not to be patched upon this. And although afflictions still remain, yet Scripture interprets theseas the mortifications of present sin [to kill and humble the oldAdam], and not as the compensations of eternal death or as prices foreternal death. 

Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evildeeds, therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs ofwrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other endsof afflictions are more important [that they should learn to regardtroubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace], lest they thinkthat they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothingbut God's punishment and anger. The other more important ends are tobe considered namely, that God is doing His strange work so that Hemay he able to do His own work, etc. , as Isaiah teaches in a longdiscourse, chap. 28. And when the disciples asked concerning theblind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause ofhis blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be mademanifest in him. And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whosejudgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thusthe prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed. Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain pastdeeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, andthat the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness[how He can help in the midst of death]. 

Thus Paul says, 2 Cor. 12, 5. 9: The strength of God is made perfectin my weakness. Therefore, because of God's will, our bodies oughtto be sacrifices, declare our obedience [and patience], and not tocompensate for eternal death, for which God has another price namely, the death of His own Son. And in this sense Gregory interprets eventhe punishment of David when he says: If God on account of that sinhad threatened that he would thus be humbled by his son, why, whenthe sin was forgiven, did He fulfil that which He had threatenedagainst him? The reply is that this remission was made that manmight not be hindered from receiving eternal life, but that theexample of the threatening followed, in order that the piety of theman might be exercised and tested even in this humility. Thus alsoGod inflicted upon man death of body on account of sin, and after theremission of sins He did not remove it, for the sake of exercisingjustice namely, in order that the righteousness of those who aresanctified might be exercised and tested. 

Nor, indeed, are common calamities [as war, famine, and similarcalamities], properly speaking, removed by these works of canonicalsatisfactions, i. E. , by these works of human traditions, which, theysay, _avail ex opere operato_, in such a way that, even though theyare wrought in mortal sin, yet they redeem from the punishments. [And the adversaries themselves confess that they imposesatisfactions, not on account of such common calamities but onaccount of purgatory; hence, their satisfactions are pureimaginations and dreams. ] And when the passage of Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 31, is cited against us: If we would judge ourselves, we should not bejudged by the Lord [they conclude therefrom that, if we imposepunishment upon ourselves, God will judge us the more graciously], the word to judge ought to be understood of the entire repentance anddue fruits, not of works which are not due. Our adversaries pay thepenalty for despising grammar when they understand to judge to be thesame as to make a pilgrimage clad in mail to the church of St. James, or similar works. To judge signifies the entire repentance, itsignifies to condemn sins. This condemnation truly occurs incontrition and the change of life. The entire repentance, contrition, faith, the good fruits, obtain the mitigation of public and privatepunishments and calamities, as Isaiah teaches chap. 1, 17, 19: Ceaseto do evil; learn to do well, etc. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shalleat the good of the land. Neither should a most important andsalutary meaning be transferred from the entire repentance, and fromworks due or commanded by God, to the satisfactions and works ofhuman traditions. And this it is profitable to teach that commonevils are mitigated by our repentance and by the true fruits ofrepentance, by good works wrought from faith, not, as these menimagine, wrought in mortal sin. And here belongs the example of theNinevites, Jonah 3, 10, who by their repentance (we speak of theentire repentance) were reconciled to God, and obtained the favorthat their city was not destroyed. 

Moreover, the making mention, by the Fathers, of satisfaction, andthe framing of canons by the councils, we have said above was amatter of church-discipline instituted on account of the example. Nor did they hold that this discipline is necessary for the remissioneither of the guilt or of the punishment. For if some of them mademention of purgatory, they interpret it not as compensation foreternal punishment [which only Christ makes], not as satisfaction, but as purification of imperfect souls. Just as Augustine says thatvenial [daily] offenses are consumed i. E. , distrust towards God andother similar dispositions are mortified. Now and then the writerstransfer the term satisfaction from the rite itself or spectacle, tosignify true mortification. Thus Augustine says: True satisfactionis to cut off the causes of sin, i. E. , to mortify the flesh, likewiseto restrain the flesh, not in order that eternal punishments may becompensated for but so that the flesh may not allure to sin. 

Thus concerning restitution, Gregory says that repentance is false ifit does not satisfy those whose property we have taken. For he whostill steals does not truly grieve that he has stolen or robbed. Forhe is a thief or robber, so long as he is the unjust possessor of theproperty of another. This civil satisfaction is necessary, becauseit is written Eph. 4, 28: Let him that stole, steal no more. Likewise Chrysostom says: In the heart, contrition; in the mouth, confession; in the work, entire humility. This amounts to nothingagainst us. Good works ought to follow repentance, it ought to berepentance, not simulation, but a change of the entire life for thebetter. 

Likewise, the Fathers wrote that it is sufficient if once in lifethis public or ceremonial penitence occur, about which the canonsconcerning satisfactions have been made. Therefore it can beunderstood that they held that these canons are not necessary for theremission of sins. For in addition to this ceremonial penitence, they frequently wish that penitence be rendered otherwise, wherecanons of satisfactions were not required. 

The composers of the Confutation write that the abolition ofsatisfactions contrary to the plain Gospel is not to be endured. We, therefore, have thus far shown that these canonical satisfactions, i. E. , works not due and that are to be performed in order to compensatefor punishment, have not the command of the Gospel. The subjectitself shows this. If works of satisfaction are works which are notdue, why do they cite the plain Gospel? For if the Gospel wouldcommand that punishments be compensated for by such works, the workswould already be due. But thus they speak in order to impose uponthe inexperienced, and they cite testimonies which speak of worksthat are due, although they themselves in their own satisfactionsprescribe works that are not due. Yea, in their schools theythemselves concede that satisfactions can be refused without [mortal]sin. Therefore they here write falsely that we are compelled by theplain Gospel to undertake these canonical satisfactions. 

But we have already frequently testified that repentance ought toproduce good fruits: and what the good fruits are the [Ten]Commandments teach, namely, [truly and from the heart most highly toesteem, fear, and love God, joyfully to call upon Him in need], prayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the Gospel [hearing thisWord], to teach the Gospel, to obey parents and magistrates, to befaithful to one's calling, not to kill, not to retain hatred, but tobe forgiving [to be agreeable and kind to one's neighbor], to give tothe needy, so far as we can according to our means, not to commitfornication or adultery, but to restrain and bridle and chastise theflesh, not for a compensation of eternal punishment, but so as not toobey the devil, or offend the Holy Ghost, likewise, to speak thetruth. These fruits have God's injunction, and ought to be broughtforth for the sake of God's glory and command; and they have theirrewards also. But that eternal punishments are not remitted excepton account of the compensation rendered by certain traditions or bypurgatory, Scripture does not teach. Indulgences were formerlyremission of these public observances, so that men should not beexcessively burdened. But if, by human authority, satisfactions andpunishments can be remitted, this compensation, therefore, is notnecessary by divine Law, for a divine Law is not annulled by humanauthority. Furthermore, since the custom has now of itself becomeobsolete and the bishops have passed it by in silence, there is nonecessity for these remissions. And yet the name indulgencesremained. And just as satisfactions were understood not withreference to external discipline, but with reference to thecompensation of punishment, so indulgences were incorrectlyunderstood to free souls from purgatory. But the keys have not thepower of binding and loosing except upon earth, according to Matt. 16, 19 : Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Although as we have said above, the keys have not the power to imposepenalties, or to institute rites of worship, but only the command toremit sins to those who are converted, and to convict andexcommunicate those who are unwilling to be converted. For just asto loose signifies to remit sins, so to bind signifies not to remitsins. For Christ speaks of a spiritual kingdom. And the command ofGod is that the ministers of the Gospel should absolve those who areconverted, according to 2 Cor. 10, 8: The authority which the Lordhath given us for edification. Therefore the reservation of eases isa secular affair. For it is a reservation of canonical punishment;it is not a reservation of guilt before God in those who are trulyconverted. Therefore the adversaries judge aright when they confessthat in the article of death the reservation of eases ought not tohinder absolution. 

We have set forth the sum of our doctrine concerning repentance, which we certainly know is godly and salutary to good minds [andhighly necessary]. And if good men will compare our [yea, Christ'sand His apostles'] doctrine with the very confused discussions of ouradversaries, they will perceive that the adversaries have omitted thedoctrine [without which no one can teach or learn anything that issubstantial and Christian] concerning faith justifying and consolinggodly hearts. They will also see that the adversaries invent manythings concerning the merits of attrition, concerning the endlessenumeration of offenses, concerning satisfactions, they say things[that touch neither earth nor heaven] agreeing neither with human nordivine law, and which not even the adversaries themselves cansatisfactorily explain. 

Part 18

Article XIII (VII): _Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments. _

In the Thirteenth Article the adversaries approve our statement thatthe Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as someimagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God's willtoward us, through which God moves hearts to believe [are not meresigns whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war, livery, etc. , but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc. ]. But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that itshould be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted inthe Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do webelieve it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose ofteaching, different people reckon differently, provided they stillpreserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither havethe ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning thisnumber of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have notbeen uniform in their enumeration, thus also these seven ceremoniesare not equally necessary. ]

If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God and towhich the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide whatare properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not inthis way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong tohuman authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted withoutGod's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhapsinstruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as tosomething [as a painted cross]. Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are trulySacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise ofgrace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we arebaptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, ourhearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ'ssake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moveshearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17:Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear inorder to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, inorder to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite isthe same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is avisible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as itwere, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same. 

Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fatherswhich not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, they donot have God's command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguishthese rites from the former, which have God's express command and aclear promise of grace. 

The adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word, and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand itas referring to sacrifice, as though in the New Testament there oughtto be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people, and merit the remission of sins for others. We teach that thesacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for thesins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of othersacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins. Men, accordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, butbecause of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that theyhave been redeemed by this sacrifice. They are accordingly calledpriests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in theLaw so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people;but they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacramentsto the people. Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical, as the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches. But ifordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, weare not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministryof the Word has God's command and glorious promises, Rom. 1, 16: TheGospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Is. 55, 11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out ofMy mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplishthat which I please. If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should bemost pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministryand is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work throughmen and those who have been chosen by men]. And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with everykind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghostis given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations oftheir own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and theAnabaptists now teach. 

Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in thebeginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properlypertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodilylife. Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, heought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the twoformer ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, andtestimonies of grace and the remission of sins. But if marriage willhave the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God's commandother states or offices also, which have God's command, may be calledsacraments, as, for example, the magistracy. 

Lastly, if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered whichhave God's command, and to which promises have been added, why do wenot add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For ithas both God's command and very many promises and if placed among theSacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men topray. Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions, which are even themselves signs, to which God has added promises. But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatlyconcerning the number or the term, if only those objects still beretained which have God's command and promises. 

It is still more needful to understand how the Sacraments are to beused. Here we condemn the whole crowd of scholastic doctors, whoteach that the Sacraments confer grace _ex opere operato_, without agood disposition on the part of the one using them, provided he donot place a hindrance in the way. This is absolutely a Jewishopinion, to hold that we are justified by a ceremony, without a gooddisposition of the heart, i. E. , without faith. And yet this impiousand pernicious opinion is taught with great authority throughout theentire realm of the Pope. Paul contradicts this and denies, Rom. 4, 9, that Abraham was justified by circumcision, but asserts thatcircumcision was a sign presented for exercising faith. Thus weteach that in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added, which should believe these promises, and receive the promised things, there offered in the Sacrament. And the reason is plain andthoroughly grounded. [This is a certain and true use of the holySacrament, on which Christian hearts and consciences may risk to rely. ] The promise is useless unless it is received by faith. But theSacraments are the signs [and seals] of the promises. Therefore, inthe use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added so that, if any oneuse the Lord's Supper, he use it thus. Because this is a Sacramentof the New Testament, as Christ clearly says, he ought for this veryreason to be confident that what is promised in the New Testamentnamely, the free remission of sins, is offered him. And let himreceive this by faith, let him comfort his alarmed conscience, andknow that these testimonies are not fallacious, but as sure as though[and still surer than if] God by a new miracle would declare fromheaven that it was His will to grant forgiveness. But of whatadvantage would these miracles and promises be to an unbeliever? Andhere we speak of special faith which believes the present promise, not only that which in general believes that God exists, but whichbelieves that the remission of sins is offered. This use of theSacrament consoles godly and alarmed minds. 

Moreover, no one can express in words what abuses in the Church thisfanatical opinion concerning the opus operate, without a gooddisposition on the part of the one using the Sacraments, has produced. Hence the infinite profanation of the Masses, but of this we shallspeak below. Neither can a single letter be produced from the oldwriters which in this matter favors the scholastics. Yea Augustinesays the contrary, that the faith of the Sacrament, and not theSacrament justifies. And the declaration of Paul is well known, Rom. 10, 10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. 

Part 19

Article XIV: _Of Ecclesiastical Order. _

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church theadministration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no oneunless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso thatwe employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we havefrequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish tomaintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [oldchurch-regulations and the government of bishops], even though theyhave been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow ourdoctrine and receive our priests]. For we know thatchurch-discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laiddown in the ancient canons with a good and useful intention. But thebishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind ofdoctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder ourpriests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of thebishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatlydesired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to ithow they will give an account to God for dispersing the Church. Inthis matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we knowthat our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not toapprove the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. And weknow that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright and not with those who not onlyby their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to deaththose who teach what is right and true towards whom, even though theydo something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore we wish here again to testify that we will gladlymaintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided thebishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desirewill clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterityfrom the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops isbeing undermined, when men read and hear that, although protestingagainst the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtainjustice. 

Part 20

Article XV (VIII): _Of Human Traditions in the Church. _

In the Fifteenth Article they receive the first part, in which we saythat such ecclesiastical rites are to be observed as can be observedwithout sin, and are of profit in the Church for tranquility and goodorder. They altogether condemn the second part, in which we say thathuman traditions instituted to appease God, to merit grace, and makesatisfactions for sins are contrary to the Gospel. Although in theConfession itself, when treating of the distinction of meats, we havespoken at sufficient length concerning traditions, yet certain thingsshould be briefly recounted here. 

Although we supposed that the adversaries would defend humantraditions on other grounds, yet we did not think that this wouldcome to pass, namely, that they would condemn this article: that wedo not merit the remission of sins or grace by the observance ofhuman traditions. Since, therefore, this article has been condemned, we have an easy and plain case. The adversaries are now openlyJudaizing, are openly suppressing the Gospel by the doctrines ofdemons. For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons when itis taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remissionof sins and grace. For they are then obscuring the Gospel, thebenefit of Christ, and the righteousness of faith. [For they arejust as directly contrary to Christ and to the Gospel as are fire andwater to one another. ] The Gospel teaches that by faith we receivefreely, for Christ's sake, the remission of sins and are reconciled. The adversaries, on the other hand, appoint another mediator, namelythese traditions. On account of these they wish to acquire remissionof sins; on account of these they wish to appease God's wrath. ButChrist clearly says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 

We have above discussed at length that men are justified by faithwhen they believe that they have a reconciled God, not because of ourworks, but gratuitously, for Christ's sake. It is certain that thisis the doctrine of the Gospel, because Paul clearly teaches Eph. 2, 8. 9: By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God; not of works. Now these men say that menmerit the remission of sins by these human observances. What else isthis than to appoint another justifier, a mediator other than Christ?Paul says to the Galatians, 5, 4: Christ has become of no effectunto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, i. E. , if youhold that by the observance of the Law you merit to be accountedrighteous before God, Christ will profit you nothing; for what needof Christ have those who hold that they are righteous by their ownobservance of the Law? God has set forth Christ with the promisethat on account of this Mediator, and not on account of ourrighteousness, He wishes to be propitious to us. But these men holdthat God is reconciled and propitious because of the traditions, andnot because of Christ. Therefore they take away from Christ thehonor of Mediator. Neither, so far as this matter is concerned isthere any difference between our traditions and the ceremonies ofMoses. Paul condemns the ceremonies of Moses, just as he condemnstraditions, for the reason that they were regarded as works whichmerit righteousness before God. Thus the office of Christ and therighteousness of faith were obscured. Therefore, the Law beingremoved, and traditions being removed, he contends that the remissionof sins has been promised not because of our works, but freely, because of Christ, if only by faith we receive it. For the promiseis not received except by faith. Since, therefore, by faith wereceive the remission of sins since by faith we have a propitious Godfor Christ's sake, it is an error and impiety to declare that becauseof these observances we merit the remission of sins. If any oneshould say here that we do not merit the remission of sins, but thatthose who have already been justified by these traditions merit grace, Paul again replies, Gal. 2, 17, that Christ would be the minister ofsin if after justification we must hold that henceforth we are notaccounted righteous for Christ's sake, but we ought first, by otherobservances, to merit that we be accounted righteous. Likewise Gal. 3, 15: Though it be but a man's covenant, no man addeth thereto. Therefore, neither to God's covenant, who promises that for Christ'ssake He will be propitious to us ought we to add that we must firstthrough these observances attain such merit as to be regarded asaccepted and righteous. 

However, what need is there of a long discussion? No tradition wasinstituted by the holy Fathers with the design that it should meritthe remission of sins, or righteousness, but they have beeninstituted for the sake of good order in the Church and for the sakeof tranquillity. And when any one wishes to institute certain worksto merit the remission of sins, or righteousness, how will he knowthat these works please God since he has not the testimony of God'sWord? How, without God's command and Word, will he render mencertain of God's will? Does He not everywhere in the prophetsprohibit men from instituting, without His commandment, peculiarrites of worship? In Ezek. 20, 18. 19 it is written: Walk ye not inthe statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nordefile yourselves with their idols: I Am the Lord, your God. Walk inMy statutes, and keep My judgements, and do them. If men are allowedto institute religious rites and through these rites merit grace, thereligious rites of all the heathen will have to be approved, and therites instituted by Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12, 26 f. , and by others, outside of the Law, will have to be approved. For what differencedoes it make? If we have been allowed to institute religious ritesthat are profitable for meriting grace, or righteousness, why was thesame not allowed the heathen and the Israelites? But the religiousrites of the heathen and the Israelites were rejected for the veryreason that they held that by these they merited remission of sinsand righteousness, and yet did not know [the highest service of God]the righteousness of faith. Lastly, whence are we rendered certainthat rites instituted by men without God's command justify, inasmuchas nothing can be affirmed of God's will without God's Word? What ifGod does not approve these services? How, therefore, do theadversaries affirm that they justify? Without God's Word andtestimony this cannot be affirmed. And Paul says, Rom. 14, 23Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But as these services have notestimony of God's Word, conscience must doubt as to whether theyplease God. 

And what need is there of words on a subject so manifest? If theadversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace, and the remission of sins, they simply establish the kingdomof Antichrist. For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God, devised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom ofMahomet has services and works through which it wishes to bejustified before God; nor does it hold that men are gratuitouslyjustified before God by faith for Christ's sake. Thus the Papacyalso will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defendshuman services as justifying. For the honor is taken away fromChrist when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously byfaith, for Christ's sake, but by such services, especially when theyteach that such services are not only useful for justification, butare also necessary, as they hold above in Art. VII, where theycondemn us for saying that unto true unity of the Church it is notnecessary that rites instituted by men should everywhere be alike. Daniel, 11, 38, indicates that new human services will be the veryform and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist. For he says thus:But in his estate shall he honor the god of forges; and a god whomhis fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and preciousstones. Here he describes new services, because he says that such agod shall be worshiped as the fathers were ignorant of. For althoughthe holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, yet theydid not hold that these matters are useful or necessary forjustification they did not obscure the glory and office Christ, buttaught that we are justified by faith for Christ's sake, and not forthe sake of these human services. But they observed human rites forthe sake of bodily advantage, that the people might know at what timethey should assemble; that, for the sake of example, all things inthe churches might be done in order and becomingly; lastly, that thecommon people might receive a sort of training. For the distinctionsof times and the variety of rites are of service in admonishing thecommon people. The Fathers had these reasons for maintaining therites, and for these reasons we also judge it to be right thattraditions [good customs] be maintained. And we are greatlysurprised that the adversaries [contrary to the entire Scriptures ofthe Apostles, contrary to the Old and New Testaments] contend foranother design of traditions, namely, that they may merit theremission of sins, grace, or justification. What else is this thanto honor God with gold and silver and precious stones [as Danielsays], i. E. , to hold that God becomes reconciled by a variety inclothing, ornaments, and by similar rites [many kinds of churchdecorations, banners, tapers], as are infinite in human traditions?

Paul writes to the Colossians, 2, 23, that traditions have a show ofwisdom. And they indeed have. For this good order is very becomingin the Church, and for this reason is necessary. But human reason, because it does not understand the righteousness of faith, naturallyimagines that such works justify men because they reconcile God, etc. Thus the common people among the Israelites thought, and by thisopinion increased such ceremonies, just as among us they have grownin the monasteries [as in our time one altar after another and onechurch after another is founded]. Thus human reason judges also ofbodily exercises, of fasts, although the end of these is to restrainthe flesh, reason falsely adds that they are services which justify. As Thomas writes: Fasting avails for the extinguishing and theprevention of guilt. These are the words of Thomas. Thus thesemblance of wisdom and righteousness in such works deceives men. And the examples of the saints are added [when they say: St. Franciswore a cap, etc. ]; and when men desire to imitate these, they imitate, for the most part, the outward exercises; their faith they do notimitate. 

After this semblance of wisdom and righteousness has deceived men, then infinite evils follow; the Gospel concerning the righteousnessof faith in Christ is obscured, and vain confidence in such workssucceeds. Then the commandments of God are obscured; these worksarrogate to themselves the title of a perfect and spiritual life, andare far preferred to the works of God's commandments [the true, holy, good works], as, the works of one's own calling, the administrationof the state, the management of a family, married life, the bringingup of children. Compared with those ceremonies, the latter arejudged to be profane, so that they are exercised by many with somedoubt of conscience. For it is known that many have abandoned theadministration of the state and married life, in order to embracethese observances as better and holier [have gone into cloisters inorder to become holy and spiritual]. 

Nor is this enough. When the persuasion has taken possession ofminds that such observances are necessary to justification, consciences are in miserable anxiety because they cannot exactlyfulfil all observances. For how many are there who could enumerateall these observances? There are immense books, yea whole libraries, containing not a syllable concerning Christ, concerning faith inChrist, concerning the good works of one's own calling, but whichonly collect the traditions and interpretations by which they aresometimes rendered quite rigorous and sometimes relaxed. [They writeof such precepts as of fasting for forty days, the four canonicalhours for prayer, etc. ] How that most excellent man, Gerson, istortured while he searches for the grades and extent of the precepts!Nevertheless, he is not able to fix _epieicheian_ [mitigation] in adefinite grade [and yet cannot find any sure grade where he couldconfidently promise the heart assurance and peace]. Meanwhile, hedeeply deplores the dangers to godly consciences which this rigidinterpretation of the traditions produces. 

Against this semblance of wisdom and righteousness in human rites, which deceives men, let us therefore fortify ourselves by the Word ofGod, and let us know, first of all that these neither merit beforeGod the remission of sins or justification, nor are necessary forjustification. We have above cited some testimonies. And Paul isfull of them. To the Colossians, 2, 16. 17, he clearly says: Let noman, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of anholy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are ashadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Here now heembraces at the same time both the Law of Moses and human traditionsin order that the adversaries may not elude these testimonies, according to their custom, upon the ground that Paul is speaking onlyof the Law of Moses. But he clearly testifies here that he isspeaking of human traditions. However, the adversaries do not seewhat they are saying; if the Gospel says that the ceremonies of Moses, which were divinely instituted, do not justify, how much less dohuman traditions justify!

Neither have the bishops the power to institute services, as thoughthey justified, or were necessary for justification. Yea, theapostles, Acts 15, 10, say: Why tempt ye God to put a yoke, etc. , where Peter declares this purpose to burden the Church a great sin. And Paul forbids the Galatians, 5, 1, to be entangled again with theyoke of bondage. Therefore, it is the will of the apostles that thisliberty remain in the Church, that no services of the Law or oftraditions be judged as necessary (just as in the Law ceremonies werefor a time necessary), lest the righteousness of faith be obscured, if men judge that these services merit justification, or arenecessary for justification. Many seek in traditions various_epieicheian_ [mitigations] in order to heal consciences, and yetthey do not find any sure grades by which to free consciences fromthese chains. But just as Alexander once for all solved the Gordianknot by cutting it with his sword when he could not disentangle it, so the apostles once for all free consciences from traditions, especially if they are taught to merit justification. The apostlescompel us to oppose this doctrine by teaching and examples. Theycompel us to teach that traditions do not justify; that they are notnecessary for justification; that no one ought to frame or receivetraditions with the opinion that they merit justification. Then, even though any one should observe them, let him observe them withoutsuperstition as civil customs, just as without superstition soldiersare clothed in one way and scholars in another [as I regard mywearing of a German costume among the Germans and a French costumeamong the French as an observance of the usage of the land, and notfor the purpose of being saved thereby]. The apostles violatetraditions and are excused by Christ for the example was to be shownthe Pharisees that these services are unprofitable. And if ourpeople neglect some traditions that are of little advantage, they arenow sufficiently excused, when these are required as though theymerit justification. For such an opinion with regard to traditionsis impious [an error not to be endured]. 

But we cheerfully maintain the old traditions [as, the three highfestivals, the observance of Sunday, and the like] made in the Churchfor the sake of usefulness and tranquillity, and we interpret them ina more moderate way, to the exclusion of the opinion which holds thatthey justify. And our enemies falsely accuse us of abolishing goodordinances and churchdiscipline. For we can truly declare that thepublic form of the churches is more becoming with us than with theadversaries [that the true worship of God is observed in our churchesin a more Christian, honorable way]. And if any one will consider itaright, we conform to the canons more truly than do the adversaries. [For the adversaries, without shame, tread under foot the mosthonorable canons, just as they do Christ and the Gospel. ] With theadversaries, unwilling celebrants, and those hired for pay, and veryfrequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses. They sing psalms, notthat they may learn or pray [for the greater part do not understand averse in the psalms], but for the sake of the service as though thiswork were a service, or at feast, for the sake of reward. [All thisthey cannot deny. Some who are upright among them are even ashamedof this baffle, and declare that the clergy is in need of reformation. ] With us many use the Lord's Supper [willingly and withoutconstraint] every Lord's Day, but after having been first instructed, examined [whether they know and understand anything of the Lord'sPrayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments], and absolved. Thechildren sing psalms in order that they may learn [become familiarwith passages of Scripture], the people also sing [Latin and Germanpsalms], in order that they may either learn or pray. With theadversaries there is no catechization of the children whatever, concerning which even the canons give commands. With us the pastorsand ministers of the churches are compelled publicly [and privately]to instruct and hear the youth; and this ceremony produces the bestfruits. [And the Catechism is not a mere childish thing, as is thebearing of banners and tapers, but a very profitable instruction. ]Among the adversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain], during the entire year no sermons are delivered, except in Lent [Herethey ought to cry out and justly make grievous complaint, for thismeans at one blow to overthrow completely all worship. For of allacts that is the greatest most holy, most necessary, and highest, which God has required as the highest in the First and the SecondCommandment, namely, to preach the Word of God. For the ministry isthe highest office in the Church. Now, if this worship is omitted, how can there be knowledge of God, the doctrine of Christ, or theGospel, ] But the chief service of God is to teach the Gospel. Andwhen the adversaries do preach, they speak of human traditions, ofthe worship of saints [of consecrated water], and similar tripes, which the people justly loathe, therefore they are desertedimmediately in the beginning, after the text of the Gospel has beenrecited. [This practise may have started because the people did notwish to hear the other lies. ] A few better ones begin now to speak ofgood works, but of the righteousness of faith, of faith in Christ, ofthe consolation of consciences, they say nothing; yea, this mostwholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches. [This blessed doctrine, the precious holy Gospel, they call Lutheran. ] On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are occupied withsuch topics as these: of repentance, of the fear of God, of faith inChrist, of the righteousness of faith, of the consolation ofconsciences by faith, of the exercises of faith; of prayer, what itsnature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it isefficacious, that it is heard of the cross; of the authority ofmagistrates and all civil ordinances [likewise, how each one in hisstation should live in a Christian manner, and, out of obedience tothe command of the Lord God, should conduct himself in reference toevery worldly ordinance and law]; of the distinction between thekingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom and political affairs, ofmarriage; of the education and instruction of children, of chastity;of all the offices of love. From this condition of the churches itmay be judged that we diligently maintain church-discipline and godlyceremonies and good churchcustoms. 

And of the mortification of the flesh and discipline of the body wethus teach, just as the Confession states, that a true and not afeigned mortification occurs through the cross and afflictions bywhich God exercises us [when God breaks our will, inflicts the crossand trouble]. In these we must obey God's will, as Paul says, Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice. And these are thespiritual exercises of fear and faith. But in addition to thismortification which occurs through the cross [which does not dependupon our will] there is also a voluntary kind of exercise necessary, of which Christ says Luke 21, 34: Take heed to yourselves lest at anytime your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting. And Paul, 1 Cor. 9, 27: I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, etc. Andthese exercises are to be undertaken not because they are servicesthat justify, but in order to curb the flesh, lest satiety mayoverpower us, and render us secure and indifferent, the result ofwhich is that men indulge and obey the dispositions of the flesh. This diligence ought to be perpetual, because it has the perpetualcommand of God. And this prescribed form of certain meats and timesdoes nothing [as experience shows] towards curbing the flesh. For itis more luxurious and sumptuous than other feasts [for they were atgreater expense, and practised greater gluttony with fish and variousLenten meats than when the fasts were not observed], and not even theadversaries observe the form given in the canons. 

This topic concerning traditions contains many and difficultquestions of controversy and we have actually experienced thattraditions are truly snares of consciences. When they are exacted asnecessary, they torture in wonderful ways the conscience omitting anyobservance [as godly hearts, indeed, experience when in the canonicalhours they have omitted a compline, or offended against them in asimilar way]. Again their abrogation has its own evils and its ownquestions. [On the other hand, to teach absolute freedom has alsoits doubts and questions, because the common people need outwarddiscipline and instruction. ] But we have an easy and plain case, because the adversaries condemn us for teaching that human traditionsdo not merit the remission of sins. Likewise they require universaltraditions, as they call them, as necessary for justification [andplace them in Christ's stead]. Here we have Paul as a constantchampion, who everywhere contends that these observances neitherjustify nor are necessary in addition to the righteousness of faith. And nevertheless we teach that in these matters the use of liberty isto be so controlled that the inexperienced may not be offended, and, on account of the abuse of liberty, may not become more hostile tothe true doctrine of the Gospel, or that without a reasonable causenothing in customary rites be changed, but that, in order to cherishharmony, such old customs be observed as can be observed without sinor without great inconvenience. And in this very assembly we haveshown sufficiently that for love's sake we do not refuse to observeadiaphora with others, even though they should have some disadvantage;but we have judged that such public harmony as could indeed beproduced without offense to consciences ought to be preferred to allother advantages [all other less important matters]. But concerningthis entire subject we shall speak after a while, when we shall treatof vows and ecclesiastical power. 

Part 21

Article XVI: _Of Political Order. _

The Sixteenth Article the adversaries receive without any exception, in which we have confessed that it is lawful for the Christian tobear civil office, sit in judgment, determine matters by the imperiallaws, and other laws in present force, appoint just punishmentsengage in just wars, act as a soldier, make legal contracts, holdproperty, take an oath when magistrates require it, contract marriage;finally, that legitimate civil ordinances are good creatures of Godand divine ordinances, which a Christian can use with safety. Thisentire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christand a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to theremarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literatureof our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual[inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God andfaith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permitsus outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nationin which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or the art ofbuilding, or food, drink, air. Neither does the Gospel bring newlaws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey presentlaws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and thatin this obedience we should exercise love. For Carlstadt was insanein imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses. Concerning thesesubjects, our theologians have written more fully, because the monksdiffused many pernicious opinions in the Church. They called acommunity of property the polity of the Gospel; they said that not tohold property, not to vindicate one's self at law [not to have wifeand child], were evangelical counsels. These opinions greatlyobscure the Gospel and the spiritual kingdom [so that it was notunderstood at all what the Christian or spiritual kingdom of Christis; they concocted the secular kingdom with the spiritual whence muchtrouble and seditions, harmful teaching resulted], and are dangerousto the commonwealth. For the Gospel does not destroy the State orthe family [buying, selling, and other civil regulations], but muchrather approves them, and bids us obey them as a divine ordinance, not only on account of punishment, but also on account of conscience. 

Julian the Apostate, Celsus, and very many others made the objectionto Christians that the Gospel would rend asunder states, because itprohibited legal redress, and taught certain other things not at allsuited to political association. And these questions wonderfullyexercised Origen, Nazianzen, and others, although, indeed, they canbe most readily explained, if we keep in mind the fact that theGospel does not introduce laws concerning the civil state, but is theremission of sins and the beginning of a new life in the hearts ofbelievers; besides, it not only approves outward governments, butsubjects us to them, Rom. 13, 1, just as we have been necessarilyplaced under the laws of seasons, the changes of winter and summer, as divine ordinances. [This is no obstacle to the spiritual kingdom. ] The Gospel forbids private redress [in order that no one shouldinterfere with the office of the magistrate], and Christ inculcatesthis so frequently with the design that the apostles should not thinkthat they ought to seize the governments from those who heldotherwise, just as the Jews dreamed concerning the kingdom of theMessiah, but that they might know they ought to teach concerning thespiritual kingdom that it does not change the civil state. Thereforeprivate redress is prohibited not by advice, but by a command, Matt. 5, 39; Rom. 12, 19. Public redress which is made through the officeof the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is awork of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1 sqq. Now the differentkinds of public redress are legal decisions, capital punishment, wars, military service. It is manifest how incorrectly many writers havejudged concerning these matters [some teachers have taught suchpernicious errors that nearly all princes, lords, knights, servantsregarded their proper estate as secular, ungodly, and damnable, etc. Nor can it be fully expressed in words what an unspeakable peril anddamage has resulted from this to souls and consciences], because theywere in the error that the Gospel is an external, new and monasticform of government, and did not see that the Gospel brings eternalrighteousness to hearts [teaches how a person is redeemed, before Godand in his conscience, from sin, hell, and the devil], while itoutwardly approves the civil state. 

It is also a most vain delusion that it is Christian perfection notto hold property. For Christian perfection consists not in thecontempt of civil ordinances, but in dispositions of the heart, ingreat fear of God, in great faith, just as Abraham, David, Daniel, even in great wealth and while exercising civil power, were no lessperfect than any hermits. But the monks [especially the Barefootmonks] have spread this outward hypocrisy before the eyes of men, sothat it could not be seen in what things true perfection exists. With what praises have they brought forward this communion ofproperty, as though it were evangelical! But these praises have thegreatest danger, especially since they differ much from theScriptures. For Scripture does not command that property be common, but the Law of the Decalog, when it says, Ex. 20, 15: Thor shalt notsteal, distinguishes rights of ownership, and commands each one tohold what is his own. Wyclif manifestly was raging when he said thatpriests were not allowed to hold property. There are infinitediscussions concerning contracts, in reference to which goodconsciences can never be satisfied unless they know the rule that itis lawful for a Christian to make use of civil ordinances and laws. This rule protects consciences when it teaches that contracts arelawful before God just to the extent that the magistrates or lawsapprove them. 

This entire topic concerning civil affairs has been so clearly setforth by our theologians that very many good men occupied in thestate and in business have declared that they have been greatlybenefited, who before, troubled by the opinion of the monks, were indoubt as to whether the Gospel allowed these civil offices andbusiness. Accordingly, we have recounted these things in order thatthose without also may understand that by the kind of doctrine whichwe follow, the authority of magistrates and the dignity of all civilordinances are not undermined, but are all the more strengthened [andthat it is only this doctrine which gives true instruction as to howeminently glorious an office, full of good Christian works, theoffice of rulers is]. The importance of these matters was greatlyobscured previously by those silly monastic opinions, which farpreferred the hypocrisy of poverty and humility to the state and thefamily, although these have God's command, while this Platoniccommunion [monasticism] has not God's command. 

Part 22

Article XVII: _Of Christ's Return to Judgment. _

The Seventeenth Article the adversaries receive without exception, inwhich we confess that at the consummation of the world Christ shallappear, and shall raise up all the dead, and shall give to the godlyeternal life and eternal joys, but shall condemn the ungodly to bepunished with the devil without end. 

Part 23

Article XVIII: _Of Free Will. _

The Eighteenth Article, Of Free Will, the adversaries receive, although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case. They add also a declamation that neither, with the Pelagians, is toomuch to be granted to the free will, nor, with the Manicheans, is allfreedom to be denied it. Very well; but what difference is therebetween the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold thatwithout the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God'scommandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can meritgrace and justification by works which reason performs by itself, without the Holy Ghost? How many absurdities follow from thesePelagian opinions, which are taught with great authority in theschools! These Augustine, following Paul, refutes pith greatemphasis, whose judgment we have recounted above in the article OfJustification. (See p. 119 and 153. ) Nor, indeed, do we deny libertyto the human will. The human will has liberty in the choice of worksand things which reason comprehends by itself. It can to a certainextent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; itcan speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work, obey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it canrestrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft. Sincethere is left in human nature reason and judgement concerning objectssubjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the libertyand power to render civil righteousness, are also left. ForScripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnalnature, i. E. , reason renders by itself, without the Holy Ghost. Although the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequentlyobey evil dispositions than sound judgment. And the devil, who isefficacious in the godless, as Paul says Eph. 2, 2, does not cease toincite this feeble nature to various offenses. These are the reasonswhy even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that noteven the philosophers themselves, who seem to have aspired after thisrighteousness, attained it. But it is false to say that he whoperforms the works of the commandments without grace does not sin. And they add further that such works also merit _de congruo_ theremission of sins and justification. For human hearts without theHoly Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God, they do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, andpreserved by God. Therefore they are godless. For neither can acorrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faithit is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6. 

Therefore, although we concede free will the liberty and power toperform the outward works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to freewill these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear God, truly tobelieve God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us, hears us, forgives us, etc. These are the true works of the FirstTable, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paulsays, 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man, i. E. , man using only naturalstrength, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God [That is aperson who is not enlightened by the Spirit of God does not, by hisnatural reason, receive anything of God's will and divine matters. ]And this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believeconcerning God's will, whether they are truly confident that they areregarded and heard by God. Even for saints to retain this faith [and, as Peter says (1 Ep. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely toGod, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly, whom he does not see] is difficult, so far is it from existing in thegodless. But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrifiedhearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation [when we are born anewof the Holy Ghost]. 

Therefore such a distribution is of advantage in which civilrighteousness is ascribed to the free will and spiritualrighteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate. For thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought toknow equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness [Godwill not tolerate indecent, wild, reckless conduct], and that, in ameasure, we can afford it. And yet a distinction is shown betweenhuman and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine andthe doctrine of the Holy Ghost and it can be understood for whatthere is need of the Holy Ghost. Nor has this distribution beeninvented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it. Augustinealso treats of it, and recently it has been well treated of byWilliam of Paris, but it has been wickedly suppressed by those whohave dreamt that men can obey God's Law without the Holy Ghost, butthat the Holy Ghost is given in order that, in addition, it may beconsidered meritorious. 

Part 24

Article XIX: _Of the Cause of Sin. _

The Nineteenth Article the adversaries receive, in which we confessthat, although God only and alone has framed all nature, andpreserves all things which exist, yet [He is not the cause of sin, but] the cause of sin is the will in the devil and men turning itselfaway from God, according to the saying of Christ concerning the devil, John 8, 44: When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own. 

Part 25

Article XX: _Of Good Works. _

In the Twentieth Article they distinctly lay down these words, namely, that they reject and condemn our statement that men do not merit theremission of sins by good works. [Mark this well!] They clearlydeclare that they reject and condemn this article. What is to besaid on a subject so manifest? Here the framers of the _Confutation_openly show by what spirit they are led. For what in the Church ismore certain than that the remission of sins occurs freely forChrist's sake, that Christ, and not our works, is the propitiationfor sins, as Peter says, Acts 10, 43: To Him give all the prophetswitness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shallreceive remission of sins? [This strong testimony of all the holyprophets may duly be called a decree of the catholic Christian Church. For even a single prophet is very highly esteemed by God and atreasure worth the whole world. ] To this Church of the prophets wewould rather assent than to these abandoned writers of theConfutation, who so impudently blaspheme Christ. For although therewere writers who held that after the remission of sins men are justbefore God, not by faith, but by works themselves, yet they did nothold this, namely, that the remission of sins itself occurs onaccount of our works, and not freely for Christ's sake. 

Therefore the blasphemy of ascribing Christ's honor to our works isnot to be endured. These theologians are now entirely without shameif they dare to bring such an opinion into the Church. Nor do wedoubt that His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty and very many of theprinces would not have allowed this passage to remain in the_Confutation_ if they had been admonished of it. Here we could citeinfinite testimonies from Scripture and from the Fathers [that thisarticle is certainly divine and true, and this is the sacred anddivine truth. For there is hardly a syllable, hardly a leaf in theBible, in the principal books of the Holy Scriptures where this isnot clearly stated. ] But also above we have said enough on thissubject. And there is no need of more testimonies for one who knowswhy Christ has been given to us, who knows that Christ is thepropitiation for our sins. [God-fearing, pious hearts that know wellwhy Christ has been given, who for all the possessions and kingdomsof the world would not be without Christ as our only Treasure, ouronly Mediator and Redeemer must here be shocked and terrified thatGod's holy Word and Truth should be so openly despised and condemnedby poor men. ] Isaiah says, 53, 6: The Lord hath laid on Him theiniquities of us all. The adversaries, on the other hand, [accuseIsaiah and the entire Bible of lying and teach that God lays ouriniquities not on Christ, but on our [beggarly] works. Neither arewe disposed to mention here the sort of works [rosaries, pilgrimages, and the like] which they teach. We see that a horrible decree hasbeen prepared against us, which would terrify us still more if wewere contending concerning doubtful or trifling subjects. Now, sinceour consciences understand that by the adversaries the manifest truthis condemned, whose defense is necessary for the Church and increasesthe glory of Christ, we easily despise the terrors of the world, andwith a strong spirit will bear whatever is to be suffered for theglory of Christ and the advantage of the Church. Who would notrejoice to die in the confession of such articles as that we obtainthe remission of sins by faith freely for Christ's sake, that we donot merit the remission of sins by our works? [Experience shows--andthe monks themselves must admit it--that] The consciences of thepious will have no sufficiently sure consolation against the terrorsof sin and of death, and against the devil soliciting to despair [andwho in a moment blows away all our works like dust], if they do notknow that they ought to be confident that they have the remission ofsins freely for Christ's sake. This faith sustains and quickenshearts in that most violent conflict with despair [in the great agonyof death, in the great anguish, when no creature can help, yea, whenwe must depart from this entire visible creation into another stateand world, and must die]. 

Therefore the cause is one which is worthy that for its sake weshould refuse no danger. Whosoever you are that has assented to ourConfession, "do not yield to the wicked, but, on the contrary, goforward the more boldly, " when the adversaries endeavor, by means ofterrors and tortures and punishments, to drive away from you thatconsolation which has been tendered to the entire Church in thisarticle of ours [but with all cheerfulness rely confidently andgladly on God and the Lord Jesus, and joyfully confess this manifesttruth in opposition to the tyranny, wrath, threatening, and terrorsof all the world, yea, in opposition to the daily murders andpersecution of tyrants. For who would suffer to have taken from himthis great, yea, everlasting consolation on which the entiresalvation of the whole Christian Church depends? Any one who picksup the Bible and reads it earnestly will soon observe that thisdoctrine has its foundation everywhere in the Bible]. Testimonies ofScripture will not be wanting to one seeking them, which willestablish his mind. For Paul at the top of his voice, as the sayingis, cries out, Rom. 3, 24 f. , and 4, 16, that sins are freelyremitted for Christ's sake. It is of faith, he says, that it mightbe by grace, to the end the promise might be sure. That is, if thepromise would depend upon our works, it would not be sure. Ifremission of sins would be given on account of our works, when wouldwe know that we had obtained it, when would a terrified consciencefind a work which it would consider sufficient to appease God'swrath? But we spoke of the entire matter above. Thence let thereader derive testimonies. For the unworthy treatment of the subjecthas forced from us the present, not discussion, but complaint that onthis topic they have distinctly recorded themselves as disapprovingof this article of ours, that we obtain remission of sins not onaccount of our works, but by faith and freely on account of Christ. 

The adversaries also add testimonies to their own condemnation, andit is worth while to recite several of them. They quote from Peter, 2. Ep. 1, 10: Give diligence to make your calling sure, etc.. Nowyou see, reader, that our adversaries have not wasted labor inlearning logic, but have the art of inferring from the Scriptureswhatever pleases them [whether it is in harmony with the Scripturesor out of harmony; whether it is correctly or incorrectly concluded. For they conclude thus:] "Make your calling sure by good works. "Therefore works merit the remission of sins. A very agreeable modeof reasoning, if one would argue thus concerning a person sentencedto capital punishment, whose punishment has been remitted: "Themagistrate commands that hereafter you abstain from that whichbelongs to another. Therefore you have merited the remission of thepenalty, because you are now abstaining from what belongs to another. "Thus to argue is to make a cause out of that which is not a cause. For Peter speaks of works following the remission of sins, andteaches why they should be done, namely, that the calling may be sure, i. E. , lest they may fall from their calling if they sin again. Dogood works that you may persevere in your calling, that you [do notfall away again, grow cold and] may not lose the gifts of yourcalling, which were given you before, and not on account of worksthat follow, and which now are retained by faith, for faith does notremain in those who lose the Holy Ghost, who reject repentance, justas we have said above (p. 253) that faith exists in repentance. 

They add other testimonies cohering no better. Lastly they say thatthis opinion was condemned a thousand years before, in the time ofAugustine. This also is quite false. For the Church of Christalways held that the remission of sins is obtained freely. Yea, thePelagians were condemned, who contended that grace is given onaccount of our works. Besides, we have above shown sufficiently thatwe hold that good works ought necessarily to follow faith. For we donot make void the Law, says Paul, Rom. 3, 31; yea, we establish theLaw, because when by faith we have received the Holy Ghost, thefulfilling of the Law necessarily follows, by which love, patience, chastity, and other fruits of the Spirit gradually grow. 

Part 26

The Twenty-first Article they absolutely condemn, because we do notrequire the invocation of saints. Nor on any topic do they speakmore eloquently and with more prolixity. Nevertheless they do noteffect anything else than that the saints should be honored; likewise, that the saints who live pray for others; as though, indeed, theinvocation of dead saints were on that account necessary. They citeCyprian, because he asked Cornelius while yet alive to pray for hisbrothers when departing. By this example they prove the invocationof the dead. They quote also Jerome against Vigilantius. "On thisfield" [in this matter], they say, "eleven hundred years ago, Jeromeovercame Vigilantius. " Thus the adversaries triumph, as though thewar were already ended. Nor do those asses see that in Jerome, against Vigilantius, there is not a syllable concerning invocation. He speaks concerning honors for the saints, not concerning invocation. Neither have the rest of the ancient writers before Gregory mademention of invocation. Certainly this invocation, with theseopinions which the adversaries now teach concerning the applicationof merits, has not the testimonies of the ancient writers. 

Our Confession approves honors to the saints. For here a threefoldhonor is to be approved. The first is thanksgiving. For we ought togive thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy, because Hehas shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachersor other gifts to the Church. And these gifts, as they are thegreatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should bepraised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praisesfaithful business-men, Matt. 25, 21. 23. The second service is thestrengthening of our faith when we see the denial forgiven Peter wealso are encouraged to believe the more that grace truly superaboundsover sin, Rom. 5, 20. The third honor is the imitation, first, offaith, then of the other virtues which every one should imitateaccording to his calling. These true honors the adversaries do notrequire. They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even thoughit would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary. 

Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is atestimony in Zech. 1, 12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, howlong wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem? Although concerning thesaints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Churchuniversal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church ingeneral, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead isextant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Bookof Maccabees, 15, 14. 

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever somuch, yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; althoughour Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach theinvocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can beproduced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, itfollows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocationthat is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, howdo we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we knowwithout the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive theprayers of each one? Some plainly ascribe divinity to the saintsnamely, that they discern the silent thoughts of the minds in us. They dispute concerning morning and evening knowledge, perhapsbecause they doubt whether they hear us in the morning or the evening. They invent these things, not in order to treat the saints withhonor, but to defend lucrative services. Nothing can be produced bythe adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation doesnot have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that thesaints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it, that God approves it. Therefore the adversaries ought not to forceus to an uncertain matter, because a prayer without faith is notprayer. For when they cite the example of the Church, it is evidentthat this is a new custom in the Church; for although the old prayersmake mention of the saints, yet they do not invoke the saints. Although also this new invocation in the Church is dissimilar to theinvocation of individuals. 

Again, the adversaries not only require invocation in the worship ofthe saints, but also apply the merits of the saints to others, andmake of the saints not only intercessors, but also propitiators. This is in no way to be endured. For here the honor belonging onlyto Christ is altogether transferred to the saints. For they makethem mediators and propitiators, and although they make a distinctionbetween mediators of intercession and mediators [the Mediator] ofredemption, yet they plainly make of the saints mediators ofredemption. But even that they are mediators of intercession theydeclare without testimony of Scripture, which, be it said ever soreverently, nevertheless obscures Christ's office, and transfers theconfidence of mercy due Christ to the saints. For men imagine thatChrist is more severe and the saints more easily appeased, and theytrust rather to the mercy of the saints than to the mercy of Christ, and fleeing from Christ [as from a tyrant], they seek the saints. Thus they actually make of them mediators of redemption. 

Therefore we shall show that they truly make of the saints, not onlyintercessors, but propitiators, i. E. , mediators of redemption. Herewe do not as yet recite the abuses of the common people [how manifestidolatry is practiced at pilgrimages]. We are still speaking of theopinions of the Doctors. As regards the rest, even the inexperienced[common people] can judge. 

In a propitiator these two things concur. In the first place, thereought to be a word of God from which we may certainly know that Godwishes to pity, and hearken to, those calling upon Him through thispropitiator. There is such a promise concerning Christ, John 16 23:Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you. Concerning the saints there is no such promise. Thereforeconsciences cannot be firmly confident that by the invocation ofsaints we are heard. This invocation, therefore, is not made fromfaith. Then we have also the command to call upon Christ, accordingto Matt. 11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor, etc. , whichcertainly is said also to us. And Isaiah says, 11, 10: In that daythere shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign tothe people; to it shall the Gentiles seek. And Ps. 45, 12: Even therich among the people shall entreat Thy favor. And Ps. 72, 11. 16:Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him. And shortly after: Prayeralso shall be made for Him continually. And in John 6, 23 Christsays: That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. And Paul, 2 Thess. 2, 16. 17, says, praying: Now our Lord JesusChrist Himself, and God, even our Father, ... Comfort your hearts andstablish you. [All these passages refer to Christ. ] But concerningthe invocation of saints, what commandment, what example can theadversaries produce from the Scriptures? The second matter in apropitiator is, that his merits have been presented as those whichmake satisfaction for others, which are bestowed by divine imputationon others, in order that through these, just as by their own merits, they may be accounted righteous. As when any friend pays a debt fora friend, the debtor is freed by the merit of another, as though itwere by his own. Thus the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us, inorder that, when we believe in Him, we may be accounted righteous byour confidence in Christ's merits as though we had merits of our own. 

And from both, namely, from the promise and the bestowment of merits, confidence in mercy arises [upon both parts must a Christian prayerbe founded]. Such confidence in the divine promise, and likewise inthe merits of Christ, ought to be brought forward when we pray. Forwe ought to be truly confident, both that for Christ's sake we areheard, and that by His merits we have a reconciled Father. 

Here the adversaries first bid us invoke the saints, although theyhave neither God's promise, nor a command, nor an example fromScripture. And yet they cause greater confidence in the mercy of thesaints to be conceived than in that of Christ, although Christ badeus come to Him and not to the saints. Secondly, they apply themerits of the saints, just as the merits of Christ, to others, theybid us trust in the merits of the saints as though we were accountedrighteous on account of the merits of the saints, in like manner aswe are accounted righteous by the merits of Christ. Here wefabricate nothing. In indulgences they say that they apply themerits of the saints [as satisfactions for our sins]. And Gabriel, the interpreter of the canon of the Mass, confidently declares:According to the order instituted by God we should betake ourselvesto the aid of the saints, in order that we may be saved by theirmerits and vows. These are the words of Gabriel. And neverthelessin the books and sermons of the adversaries still more absurd thingsare read here and there. What is it to make propitiators if this isnot? They are altogether made equal to Christ if we must trust thatwe are saved by their merits. 

But where has this arrangement, to which he refers when he says thatwe ought to resort to the aid of the saints, been instituted by God?Let him produce an example or command from the Scriptures. Perhapsthey derive this arrangement from the courts of kings, where friendsmust be employed as intercessors. But if a king has appointed acertain intercessor, he will not desire that eases be brought to himthrough others. Thus, since Christ has been appointed Intercessorand High Priest, why do we seek others? [What can the adversariessay in reply to this?]

Here and there this form of absolution is used: The passion of ourlord Jesus Christ the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and ofall the saints, be to thee for the remission of sins. Here theabsolution is pronounced on the supposition that we are reconciledand accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ, but also bythe merits of the other saints. Some of us have seen a doctor oftheology dying, for consoling whom a certain theologian, a monk, wasemployed. He pressed on the dying man nothing but this prayer:Mother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour ofdeath. 

Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receivesouls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does thesethings? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but ratherwishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of herfaith and her humility]. But the subject itself declares that inpublic opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to theplace of Christ. Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy, through her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not aPropitiator, but only a dreadful judge and avenger. We believe, however, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints areapplied to us, that on account of these God is reconciled to us, oraccounts us just, or saves us. For we obtain remission of sins onlyby the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him. Of the other saintsit has been said, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own rewardaccording to his own labor, i. E. , they cannot mutually bestow theirown merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits oftheir orders. Even Hilary says of the foolish virgins: And as thefoolish virgins could not go forth with their lamps extinguished, they besought those who were prudent to lend them oil; to whom theyreplied that they could not give it because peradventure there mightnot be enough for all; i. E. , no one can be aided by the works andmerits of another, because it is necessary for every one to buy oilfor his own lamp. [Here he points out that none of us can aidanother by other people's works or merits. ]

Since, therefore, the adversaries teach us to place confidence in theinvocation of saints, although they have neither the Word of God northe example of Scripture [of the Old or of the New Testament]; sincethey apply the merits of the saints on behalf of others, nototherwise than they apply the merits of Christ, and transfer thehonor belonging only to Christ to the saints, we can receive neithertheir opinions concerning the worship of the saints, nor the practiseof invocation. For we know that confidence is to be placed in theintercession of Christ, because this alone has God's promise. Weknow that the merits of Christ alone are a propitiation for us. Onaccount of the merits of Christ we are accounted righteous when webelieve in Him, as the text says, Rom. 9, 33 (cf. 1 Pet. 2, 6 and Is. 28, 16): Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Neitherare we to trust that we are accounted righteous by the merits of theblessed Virgin or of the other saints. 

With the learned this error also prevails namely, that to each sainta particular administration has been committed, that Anna bestowsriches [protects from poverty], Sebastian keeps off pestilence, Valentine heals epilepsy, George protects horsemen. These opinionshave clearly sprung from heathen examples. For thus, among theRomans Juno was thought to enrich, Febris to keep off fever, Castorand Pollux to protect horsemen, etc. Even though we should imaginethat the invocation of saints were taught with the greatest prudence, yet since the example is most dangerous, why is it necessary todefend it when it has no command or testimony from God's Word? Aye, it has not even the testimony of the ancient writers. First because, as I have said above, when other mediators are sought in addition toChrist, and confidence is put in others, the entire knowledge ofChrist is suppressed. The subject shows this. In the beginning, mention of the saints seems to have been admitted with a design thatis endurable, as in the ancient prayers. Afterwards invocationfollowed, and abuses that are prodigious and more than heathenishfollowed invocation. From invocation the next step was to images;these also were worshiped, and a virtue was supposed to exist inthese, just as magicians imagine that a virtue exists in images ofthe heavenly bodies carved at a particular time. In a certainmonastery we [some of us] have seen a statue of the blessed Virgin, which moved automatically by a trick [within by a string], so as toseem either to turn away from [those who did not make a largeoffering] or nod to those making request. 

Still the fabulous stories concerning the saints, which are publiclytaught with great authority, surpass the marvelous tales of thestatues and pictures. Barbara, amidst her torments, asks for thereward that no one who would invoke her should die without theEucharist. Another, standing on one foot, recited daily the wholepsaltery. Some wise man painted [for children] Christophorus [whichin German means Bearer of Christ], in order by the allegory tosignify that there ought to be great strength of mind in those whowould bear Christ, i. E. , who would teach or confess the Gospel, because it is necessary to undergo the greatest dangers [for theymust wade by night through the great sea, i. E. , endure all kinds oftemptations and dangers]. Then the foolish monks taught among thepeople that they ought to invoke Chistophorus, as though such aPolyphemus [such a giant who bore Christ through the sea] had onceexisted. And although the saints performed very great deeds, eitheruseful to the state or affording private examples the remembrance ofwhich would conduce much both toward strengthening faith and towardfollowing their example in the administration of affairs, no one hassearched for these from true narratives. [Although God Almightythrough His saints, as a peculiar people, has wrought many greatthings in both realms, in the Church and in worldly transactions;although there are many great examples in the lives of the saintswhich would be very profitable to princes and lords, to true pastorsand guardians of souls, for the government both of the world and ofthe Church, especially for strengthening faith in God, yet they havepassed these by, and preached the most insignificant mattersconcerning the saints, concerning their hard beds their hair shirts, etc. , which, for the greater part, are falsehoods. ] Yet indeed it isof advantage to hear how holy men administered governments [as in theHoly Scriptures it is narrated of the kings of Israel and Judah], what calamities, what dangers they underwent, how holy men were ofaid to kings in great dangers, how they taught the Gospel, whatencounters they had with heretics. Examples of mercy are also ofservice, as when we see the denial forgiven Peter, when we seeCyprian forgiven for having been a magician, when we see Augustine, having experienced the power of faith in sickness steadily affirmingthat God truly hears the prayers of believers. It was profitablethat such examples as these, which contain admonitions for eitherfaith or fear or the administration of the state, be recited. Butcertain triflers, endowed with no knowledge either of faith or forgoverning states, have invented stories in imitation of poems, inwhich there are nothing but superstitious examples concerning certainprayers, certain fastings, and certain additions of service forbringing in gain [where there are nothing but examples as to how thesaints wore hair shirts, how they prayed at the seven canonical hourshow they lived upon bread and water]. Such are the miracles thathave been invented concerning rosaries and similar ceremonies. Noris there need here to recite examples. For the legends, as they callthem, and the mirrors of examples, and the rosaries, in which thereare very many things not unlike the true narratives of Lucian, areextant. 

The bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous andwicked stories [this abomination set up against Christ, thisblasphemy, these scandalous, shameless lies, these lying preachers;and they have permitted them so long, to the great injury ofconsciences, that it is terrible to think of it] because they aidthem to their daily bread. They do not tolerate us, who, in orderthat the honor and office of Christ may be more conspicuous, do notrequire the invocation of saints, and censure the abuses in theworship of saints. And although [even their own theologians], allgood men everywhere [a long time before Dr. Luther began to write] inthe correction of these abuses, greatly longed for either theauthority of the bishops or the diligence of the preachers, nevertheless our adversaries in the _Confutation_ altogether passover vices that are even manifest, as though they wish, by thereception of the Confutation, to compel us to approve even the mostnotorious abuses. 

Thus the _Confutation_ has been deceitfully written, not only on thistopic, but almost everywhere. [They pretend that they are as pure asgold, that they have never muddled the water. ] There is no passage inwhich they make a distinction between the manifest abuses and theirdogmas. And nevertheless, if there are any of sounder mind amongthem they confess that many false opinions inhere in the doctrine ofthe scholastics and canonists, and, besides, that in such ignoranceand negligence of the pastors many abuses crept into the Church. ForLuther was not [the only one nor] the first to complain of[innumerable] public abuses. Many learned and excellent men longbefore these times deplored the abuses of the Mass, confidence inmonastic observances, services to the saints intended to yield arevenue, the confusion of the doctrine concerning repentance[concerning Christ], which ought to be as clear and plain in theChurch as possible [without which there cannot be nor remain aChristian Church]. We ourselves have heard that excellenttheologians desire moderation in the scholastic doctrine whichcontains much more for philosophical quarrels than for piety. Andnevertheless, among these the older ones are generally nearerScripture than are the more recent. Thus their theology degeneratedmore and more. Neither had many good men, who from the very firstbegan to be friendly to Luther, any other reason than that they sawthat he was freeing the minds of men from these labyrinths of mostconfused and infinite discussions which exist among the scholastictheologians and canonists, and was teaching things profitable forgodliness. 

The adversaries, therefore, have not acted candidly in passing overthe abuses when they wished us to assent to the Confutation. And ifthey wished to care for the interests of the Church [and of Buffetedconsciences, and not rather to maintain their pomp and avarice]especially on that topic, at this occasion they ought to exhort ourmost excellent Emperor to take measures for the correction of abuses[which furnish grounds for derision among the Turks, the Jews, andall unbelievers], as we observe plainly enough that he is mostdesirous of healing and well establishing the Church. But theadversaries do not act as to aid the most honorable and most holywill of the Emperor, but so as in every way to crush [the truth and]us. Many signs show that they have little anxiety concerning thestate of the Church. [They lose little sleep from concern thatChristian doctrine and the pure Gospel be preached. ] They take nopains that there should be among the people a summary of the dogmasof the Church. [The office of the ministry they permit to be quitedesolate. ] They defend manifest abuses [they continue every day toshed innocent blood] by new and unusual cruelty. They allow nosuitable teachers in the churches. Good men can easily judge whitherthese things tend. But in this way they have no regard to theinterest either of their own authority or of the Church. For afterthe good teachers have been killed and sound doctrine suppressed, fanatical spirits will rise up, whom the adversaries will not be ableto restrain, who both will disturb the Church with godless dogmas, and will overthrow the entire ecclesiastical government, which we arevery greatly desirous of maintaining. 

Therefore, most excellent Emperor Charles for the sake of the gloryof Christ, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise andmagnify, we beseech you not to assent to the violent counsels of ouradversaries, but to seek other honorable ways of so establishingharmony that godly consciences are not burdened, that no cruelty isexercised against innocent men, as we have hitherto seen, and thatsound doctrine is not suppressed in the Church. To God most of allyou owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintainsound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those whoteach what is right. For God demands this when He honors kings withHis own name and calls them gods, saying, Ps. 82, 6: I have said, Yeare gods, namely, that they should attend to the preservation andpropagation of divine things, i. E. , the Gospel of Christ, on theearth, and, as the vicars of God, should defend the life and safetyof the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers]. 

Part 27

Article XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper. _

It cannot be doubted that it is godly and in accordance with theinstitution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in theLord's Supper. For Christ instituted both parts, and instituted themnot for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church. For notonly the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by theauthority of Christ, and not by human authority, and this, we suppose, the adversaries acknowledge. Now, if Christ has instituted it forthe entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church?Why is the use of the other kind prohibited? Why is the ordinance ofChrist changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament?But if it is not allowable to annul man's testament, much less willit be allowable to annul the testament of Christ. And Paul says, 1Cor. 11, 23 ff. , that he had received of the Lord that which hedelivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he saysfirst concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same wordsconcerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a manexamine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of thatcup. [Here he names both. ] These are the words of Him who hasinstituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those whowill use the Lord's Supper should use both. It is evident, therefore, that the Sacrament was instituted for the entire Church. And thecustom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained inthe Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify. For thus Jeromesays on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, anddistribute the Lord's blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledogives the same testimony. Nor would it be difficult to accumulate agreat multitude of testimonies. Here we exaggerate nothing; we butleave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerningthe divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change anordinance and institution of Christ]. 

The adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort theconsciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacramenthas been denied. This would have been becoming to good and religiousmen. For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructingconsciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted, should have been sought. Now these very men maintain that it isright to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of bothparts be allowed. First, they imagine that, in the beginning of theChurch, it was the custom at some places that only one part wasadministered. Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancientexample of this matter. But they cite the passages in which mentionis made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that thedisciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread. They quotealso other passages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breakingof bread. But although we do not greatly oppose if some receivethese passages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not followthat one part only was given, because, according to the ordinaryusage of language, by the naming of one part the other is alsosignified. They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use ofonly one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to useLay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, butto receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it ismeant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration. Neither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse theignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion, immediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part ofthe Sacrament is given to the laymen. 

And consider their impudence. Gabriel recounts among other reasonswhy both parts are not given that a distinction should be madebetween laymen and presbyters. And it is credible that the chiefreason why the prohibition of the one part is defended is this, namely, that the dignity of the order may be the more highly exaltedby a religious rite. To say nothing more severe, this is a humandesign; and whither this tends can easily be judged. In the_Confutation_ they also quote concerning the sons of Eli that afterthe loss of the high-priesthood, they were to seek the one partpertaining to the priests, 1 Sam. 2, 36 [the text reads: Every onethat is left in thine house shall come and crouch him for a piece ofsilver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priest's offices (German: _Lieber, lass mich zu einemPriesterteil_) that I may eat a piece of bread]. Here they say thatthe use of one kind was signified. And they add: "Thus, therefore, our laymen ought also to be content, with one part pertaining to thepriests, with one kind. " The adversaries [the masters of the_Confutation_ are quite shameless, rude asses, and] are clearlytrifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity ofEli to the Sacrament. The punishment of Eli is there described. Will they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have beenremoved from the other party [They are quite foolish and mad. ] TheSacrament was instituted to console and comfort terrified minds whenthey believe that the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world, is food, when they believe that, being joined to Christ [throughthis food], they are made alive. But the adversaries argue thatlaymen are removed from the other part as a punishment. "They ought, "they say, "to be content. " This is sufficient for a despot. [That, surely, sounds proud and defiant enough. ] But [my lords, may we askthe reason] why ought they? "The reason must not be asked but letwhatever the theologians say be law. " [Is whatever you wish andwhatever you say to be sheer truth? See now and be astonished howshameless and impudent the adversaries are: they dare to set up theirown words as sheer commands of lords, they frankly say: The laymenmust be content. But what if they must not?] This is a concoction ofEck. For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we wouldwish to criticize, there would be no want of language. For you seehow great the impudence is. He commands, as a tyrant in thetragedies: "Whether they wish or not, they must be content. " Will thereasons which he cites excuse, in the judgment of God, those whoprohibit a part of the Sacrament, and rage against men using anentire Sacrament? [Are they to take comfort in the fact that it isrecorded concerning the sons of Eli: They will go begging? That willbe a shuffling excuse at the judgment-seat of God. ] If they make theprohibition in order that there should be a distinguishing mark ofthe order, this very reason ought to move us not to assent to theadversaries, even though we would be disposed in other respects tocomply with their custom. There are other distinguishing marks ofthe order of priests and of the people, but it is not obscure whatdesign they have for defending this distinction so earnestly. Thatwe may not seem to detract from the true worth of the order, we willnot say more concerning this shrewd design. 

They also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things, which do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ. [They allege more dreams like these for the sake of which it wouldbe improper to change the ordinance of Christ. ] And, indeed, if weassume that we are free to use either one part or both, how can theprohibition [to use both kinds] be defended? Although the Churchdoes not assume to itself the liberty to convert the ordinances ofChrist into matters of indifference. We indeed excuse the Churchwhich has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have beendeprived of one part by force], since it could not obtain both parts;but the authors who maintain that the use of the entire Sacrament isjustly prohibited, and who now not only prohibit, but evenexcommunicate and violently persecute those using an entire Sacrament, we do not excuse. Let them see to it how they will give an accountto God for their decisions. Neither is it to be judged immediatelythat the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffsdetermine, especially since Scripture prophesies concerning thebishops and pastors to effect this as Ezekiel says, 7, 28: The Lawshall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops whowill know no command or law of God]. 

Part 28

Article XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests. _

Despite the great infamy of their defiled celibacy, the adversarieshave the presumption not only to defend the pontifical law by thewicked and false pretext of the divine name, but even to exhort theEmperor and princes, to the disgrace and infamy of the Roman Empire, not to tolerate the marriage of priests. For thus they speak. [Although the great, unheard-of lewdness, fornication, and adulteryamong priests, monks, etc. , at the great abbeys, in other churchesand cloisters, has become so notorious throughout the world thatpeople sing and talk about it, still the adversaries who havepresented the _Confutation_ are so blind and without shame that theydefend the law of the Pope by which marriage is prohibited, and that, with the specious claim that they are defending a spiritual state. Moreover, although it would be proper for them to be heartily ashamedof the exceedingly shameful, lewd, abandoned loose life of thewretches in their abbeys and cloisters, although on this accountalone they should not have the courage to show their face in broaddaylight, although their evil, restless heart and conscience ought tocause them to tremble, to stand aghast, and to be afraid to lifttheir eyes to our excellent Emperor, who loves uprightness, stillthey have the courage of the hangman, they act like the very deviland like all reckless, wanton people, proceeding in blind defianceand forgetful of all honor and decency. And these pure chastegentlemen dare to admonish His Imperial Majesty, the Electors andPrinces not to tolerate the marriage of priests _ad infamiam etignominiam imperti_, that is, to ward off shame and disgrace from theRoman Empire. For these are their words, as if their shameful lifewere a great honor and glory to the Church. ]

What greater impudence has ever been read of in any history than thisof the adversaries? [Such shameless advocates before a Roman Emperorwill not easily be found. If all the world did not know them, ifmany godly, upright people among them, their own canonical brethren, had not complained long ago of their shameful, lewd, indecent conduct, if their vile, abominable, ungodly, lewd, heathenish, Epicurean life, and the dregs of all filthiness at Rome were not quite manifest, onemight think that their great purity and their inviolate virginchastity were the reason why they could not bear to hear the wordwoman or marriage pronounced, and why they baptize holy matrimony, which the Pope himself calls a sacrament, _infamiam imperil_. ] Forthe arguments which they use we shall afterwards review. Now let thewise reader consider this, namely, what shame these good-for-nothingmen have who say that marriages [which the Holy Scriptures praisemost highly and command] produce infamy and disgrace to thegovernment, as though, indeed, this public infamy of flagitious andunnatural lusts which glow among these very holy fathers, who feignthat they are Curii and live like bacchanals, were a great ornamentto the Church! And most things which these men do with the greatestlicense cannot even be named without a breach of modesty. And thesetheir lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand, Emperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as theking of modest face, for the saying appears concerning you: "Onemodest in face shall reign everywhere"). For they ask that, contraryto divine law, contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the canonsof Councils you sunder marriages, in order to impose merely for thesake of marriage atrocious punishments upon innocent men, to put todeath priests, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to drive intoexile banished women and fatherless children. Such laws they bringto you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity, however monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear. But because thestain of no disgrace or cruelty falls upon your character, we hopethat you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when youhave learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our beliefderived from the Word of God to which the adversaries oppose the mosttrifling and vain opinions. 

And nevertheless they do not seriously defend celibacy. For they arenot ignorant how few there are who practise chastity, but [they stickto that comforting saying which is found in their treatise, _Si noncaste, tamen caue_ (If not chastely, at least cautiously) and] theydevise a sham of religion for their dominion, which they think thatcelibacy profits, in order that we may understand Peter to have beenright in admonishing, 2 Ep. 2, 1, that there will be false teacherswho will deceive men with feigned words. For the adversaries say, write, or do nothing truly [their words are merely an argument _adhominem_], frankly, and candidly in this entire case, but theyactually contend only concerning the dominion which they falselythink to be imperiled, and which they endeavor to fortify with awicked pretense of godliness [they support their case with nothingbut impious, hypocritical lies; accordingly, it will endure about aswell as butter exposed to the sun]. 

We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversariesdefend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is atvariance with the very canons of the Councils. And that it issuperstitious and dangerous is evident. For it produces infinitescandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in thereal towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences]. Our other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in thisthe subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires nodiscussion. It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fearsGod. And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet theadversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing ourarguments. 

First. Gen. 1, 28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, andthat one sex in a proper way should desire the other. For we arespeaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetitewhich was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would haveexisted in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which theycall physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is trulya divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot beremoved without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that theright to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows. 

The adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in thebeginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but thatnow since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded. See how wisely they judge! The nature of men is so formed by theword of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of thecreation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just asthe earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earthbring forth grass, yielding seed. Because of this ordinance theearth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, butthe fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order willexist. Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earthcannot be changed, so, without a special work of God the nature of ahuman being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that awoman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman]. 

Secondly. And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is anatural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctlythat the union of male and female belongs to natural right. Butsince natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage mustalways remain. For where nature does not change, that ordinance alsowith which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot beremoved by human laws. Therefore it is ridiculous for theadversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning, but is not now. This is the same as if they would say: Formerly, when men were born, they brought with them sex; now they do not. Formerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right, now they do not. No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything morecrafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right ofnature. Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scriptureteaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of maleand female belongs to natural right. Moreover, a natural right istruly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressedupon nature. But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without anextraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contractmarriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is anordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise, why would both sexes have been created? And we are speaking, as ithas been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of thatdesire which they call physical love [which would have existedbetween man and woman even though their nature had remained pure], which concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, sothat now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessarynot only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guardagainst sins]. These things are clear, and so well established thatthey can in no way be overthrown. 

Thirdly. Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every manhave his own wife. This now is an express command pertaining to allwho are not fit for celibacy. The adversaries ask that a commandmentbe shown them which commands priests to marry. As though priests arenot men! We judge indeed that the things which we maintainconcerning human nature in general pertain also to priests. Does notPaul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?For he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It isbetter to marry than to burn. And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19, 11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Because now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two thingsconcur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflamesthe natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage thanin nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as aremedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry. Neithercan any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration:It is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove thenature or concupiscence. Therefore all who burn, retain the right tomarry. By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let everyman have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keepthemselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to theconscience of each one. 

For as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and toweaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim thesemagnificent commandments to themselves? But, as we have said above, the adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously. If continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiargift. But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift;therefore it does not belong to all. God wishes the rest to use thecommon law of nature which He has instituted. For God does not wishHis ordinances, His creations to be despised. He wishes men to bechaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, justas He wishes to nourish our life in this way, that we use food anddrink. Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men whoendeavored to subdue the body, and yet made little progress. Accordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thingthat can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vowrather than of precept. If any one here would raise the objectionthat Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for thekingdom of heaven's sake, Matt. 19, 12, let him also consider this, that He is praising such as have the gift of continence, for on thisaccount He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. For an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries andcloisters] does not please Christ. We also praise true continence. But now we are disputing concerning the law and concerning those whodo not have the gift of continence. The matter ought to be left freeand snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law. 

Fourthly. The pontifical law differs also from the canons of theCouncils. For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neitherdo they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, even if theyremove from the administration of their office those who havecontracted them in the ministry. At those times this dismissal wasan act of kindness [rather than a punishment]. But the new canons, which have not been framed in the Synods, but have been madeaccording to the private judgment of the Popes, both prohibit thecontraction of marriages, and dissolve them when contracted; and thisis to be done openly, contrary to the command of Christ, Matt. 19, 6:What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. In the_Confutation_ the adversaries exclaim that celibacy has beencommanded by the Councils. We do not find fault with the decrees ofthe Councils; for under a certain condition these allow marriage, butwe find fault with the laws which, since the ancient Synods, thePopes of Rome have framed contrary to the authority of the Synods. The Popes despise the authority of the Synods, just as much as theywish it to appear holy to others [under peril of God's wrath andeternal damnation]. Therefore this law concerning perpetual celibacyis peculiar to this new pontifical despotism. Nor is it without areason. For Daniel, 11, 37, ascribes to the kingdom of Antichristthis mark, namely, the contempt of women. 

Fifthly. Although the adversaries do not defend the law because ofsuperstition, [not because of its sanctity, as from ignorance], sincethey see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffusesuperstitious opinions, while they give a pretext of religion. Theyproclaim that they require celibacy because it is purity. As thoughmarriage were impurity and a sin, or as though celibacy meritedjustification more than does marriage! And to this end they cite theceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because, since under the Law, thepriests, at the time of ministering, were separated from their wives, the priest in the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray, ought always to practise continence. This silly comparison ispresented as a proof which should compel priests to perpetualcelibacy, although, indeed, in this very comparison marriage isallowed, only in the time of ministering its use is interdicted. Andit is one thing to pray; another, to minister. The saints prayedeven when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did conjugalintercourse hinder them from praying. 

But we shall reply in order to these figments. In the first place, it is necessary for the adversaries to acknowledge this, namely, thatin believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by theWord of God, i. E. , it is a matter that is permitted and approved bythe Word of God, as Scripture abundantly testifies. For Christ callsmarriage a divine union, when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What God hathjoined together [let not man put asunder. Here Christ says thatmarried people are joined together by God. Accordingly, it is a pure, holy, noble, praiseworthy work of God]. And Paul says of marriage, of meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified by theWord of God and prayer, i. E. , by the Word, by which consciencesbecome certain that God approves; and by prayer, i. E. , by faith, which uses it with thanksgiving as a gift of God. Likewise, 1 Cor. 7, 14: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc. , i. E.. The use of marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith inChrist, just as it is permitted to use meat, etc. Likewise, 1 Tim. 2, 16: She shall, be saved in childbearing [if they continue in faith], etc. If the adversaries could produce such a passage concerningcelibacy, then indeed they would celebrate a wonderful triumph. Paulsays that woman is saved by child-bearing. What more honorable couldbe said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved bythe conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearingchildren and the other duties? But what does St. Paul mean? Let thereader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties withoutfaith are not praised. If they continue, he says, in faith. For hespeaks of the whole class of mothers. Therefore he requiresespecially faith [that they should have God's Word and be believing], by which woman receives the remission of sins and justification. Then he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every man agood work of a particular calling ought to follow faith. This workpleases God on account of faith. Thus the duties of the woman pleaseGod on account of faith, and the believing woman is saved who in suchduties devoutly serves her calling. 

These testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy andChristian] thing. If therefore purity signifies that which isallowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because theyhave been approved by the Word of God. And Paul says of lawfulthings, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i. E. , tothose who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith. Therefore, as virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage ispure on account of the Word of God and faith. 

Again, if purity is properly opposed to concupiscence, it signifiespurity of heart, i. E. , mortified concupiscence, because the Law doesnot prohibit marriage, but concupiscence, adultery, fornication. Therefore celibacy is not purity. For there may be greater purity ofheart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of thosewho are even truly continent [who even, according to bodily purity, really maintain their chastity]. 

Lastly, if they understand that celibacy is purity in the sense thatit merits justification more than does marriage, we most emphaticallycontradict it. For we are justified neither on account of virginitynor on account of marriage, but freely for Christ's sake, when webelieve that for His sake God is propitious to us. Here perhaps theywill exclaim that, according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage ismade equal to virginity. But, on account of such clamors we shallnot reject the truth concerning the righteousness of faith, which wehave explained above. Nevertheless we do not make virginity andmarriage equal. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecysurpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpassesagriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is amore excellent gift than marriage. And nevertheless, just as anorator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence thanan architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin doesnot merit justification by virginity more than a married personmerits it by conjugal duties but each one ought faithfully to servein his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receivesthe remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God. 

Neither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies, but because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations, in praying, teaching, [writing, ] serving. For this reason Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 32: He that is unmarried careth for the things whichbelong to the Lord. Virginity, therefore, is praised on account ofmeditation and study. Thus Christ does not simply praise those whomake themselves eunuchs, but adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake, i. E. , that they may have leisure to learn or teach the Gospel; for Hedoes not say that virginity merits the remission of sins or salvation. 

To the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they donot establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon thepriests. Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to betransferred to us. [The law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutesconcerning what is clean or unclean, do not at all concern usChristians. ] Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity. Now it is not impurity, because Paul says, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pureall things are pure. For the Gospel frees us from these Leviticalimpurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from thelaws concerning uncleanness]. And if any one defends the law ofcelibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Leviticalobservances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles inActs 15, 10 sqq. Strove against those who required circumcision andendeavored to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians. 

Yet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use ofmarriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices, which often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel alldomestic thoughts from their minds. [For to be burdened with greataffairs and transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations, governments and churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam fromlustfulness. ] Good men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4, commands that every one possess his vessel in sanctification [andhonor, not in the lust of concupiscence]. They know likewise thatthey must sometimes retire, in order that there may be leisure forprayer, but Paul does not wish this to be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Nowsuch continence is easy to those who are good and occupied. But thisgreat crowd of unemployed priests which is in the fraternities cannotafford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical continence, asthe facts show. [On the other hand, what sort of chastity can therebe among so many thousands of monks and priests who live withoutworry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover, have not the Word of God, do not learn it, and have no regard for it. Such conditions bring on all manner of inchastity. Such people canobserve neither Levitical nor perpetual chastity. ] And the lines arewell known: The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates thosewho are busy. 

Many heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treatedmarriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gainedextraordinary admiration. And Epiphanius complains that, by thiscommendation especially, the Encratites captured the minds of theunwary. They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; theyabstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpassed theDominican brethren who live upon fish. They abstained also frommarriage; and just this gained the chief admiration. These works, these services, they thought, merited grace more than the use of wineand flesh, and than marriage, which seemed to be a profane andunclean matter, and which scarcely could please God, even though itwere not altogether condemned. 

Paul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelicforms of worship. For when men believe that they are pure andrighteous on account of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledgeof Christ, and suppress also the knowledge of God's gifts andcommandments. For God wishes us to use His gifts in a godly way. And we might mention examples where certain godly consciences weregreatly disturbed on account of the lawful use of marriage. Thisevil was derived from the opinions of monks superstitiously praisingcelibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a life that would bea great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins]. Nevertheless we donot find fault with temperance or continence, but we have said abovethat exercises and mortifications of the body are necessary. Weindeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain observances, as though they made righteous. And Epiphanies has elegantly saidthat these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kaidia tehn politeian, i. E. , for restraining the body or on account ofpublic morals; just as certain rites were instituted for instructingthe ignorant, and not as services that justify. 

But it is not through superstition that our adversaries requirecelibacy, for they know that chastity is not ordinarily rendered[that at Rome, also in all their monasteries, there is nothing butundisguised, unconcealed inchastity. Nor do they seriously intend tolead chaste lives, but knowingly practise hypocrisy before thepeople]. But they feign superstitious opinions, so as to delude theignorant. They are therefore more worthy of hatred than theEncratites, who seem to have erred by show of religion; theseSardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion. 

Sixthly. Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the lawof perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls andpublic scandals also are added, which even, though the law were notunjust, ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as hasdestroyed innumerable souls. 

For a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] havecomplained of this burden, either on their own account, or on accountof others whom they saw to be in danger. But no Popes give ear tothese complaints. Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious topublic morals this law is, and what vices and shameful lusts it hasproduced. The Roman satires are extant. In these Rome stillrecognizes and reads its own morals. 

Thus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in thosewho prohibit marriage. But since the custom in regard to other lawswas that they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it, why is the same not done with respect to this law, in which so manyweighty reasons concur, especially in these last times, why a changeought to be made? Nature is growing old and is gradually becomingweaker, and vices are increasing; wherefore the remedies divinelygiven should have been employed. We see what vice it was which Goddenounced before the Flood, what He denounced before the burning ofthe five cities. Similar vices have preceded the destruction of manyother cities, as of Sybaris and Rome. And in these there has beenpresented an image of the times which will be next to the end ofthings. Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have beenespecially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, andmen ought to have been invited to marriage. This duty pertains tothe magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline. [God hasnow so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permittedalmost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflictedon account of marriage. Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile theteachers of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinentmen to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift ofcontinence. 

The Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are mostexcellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are asiron and inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this issimply of human right. And they are now making this law moregrievous in many ways. The canon bids them suspend priests, theserather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but fromtrees. They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage. [It isto be feared therefore, that the blood of Abel will cry to heaven soloudly as not to be endured, and that we shall have to tremble likeCain. ] And these very parricides show that this law is a doctrine ofdemons. For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law bythese parricides. 

We know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because weseem to have separated from those who are thought to be regularbishops. But our consciences are very secure, since we know that, though we most earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannotplease the adversaries unless we cast away manifest truth, and thenagree with these very men in being willing to defend this unjust law, to dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put to deathpriests if they do not obey, to drive poor women and fatherlesschildren into exile. But since it is well established that theseconditions are displeasing to God, we can in no way grieve that wehave no alliance with the multitude of murderers among theadversaries. 

We have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a goodconscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical lawconcerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine andnatural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and issuperstitious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the wholeaffair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake ofreligion [not for holiness' sake, or because they do not know better;they know very well that everybody is well acquainted with thecondition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but forthe sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext ofreligion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against thesemost firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to thoseto whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those tomarry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. Wehold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor dowe wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolvemarriages that have been contracted. 

We have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted ourarguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we haveexplained away these false accusations. Now we shall relate asbriefly as possible with what important reasons they defend the law. First, they say that it has been revealed by God. You see theextreme impudence of these sorry fellows. They dare to affirm thatthe law of perpetual celibacy has been divinely revealed, although itis contrary to manifest testimonies of Scripture, which command thatto avoid fornication each one should have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2;which likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that have been contracted;cf. Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the knaves say inreply? And how dare they wantonly and shamelessly misapply the great, most holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds us what anauthor such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of demons, 1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so manymonstrous lusts and so many murders which are now committed under thepretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome]. 

The second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought tobe pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vesselsof the Lord. And they cite many things to this effect. This reasonwhich they display we have above removed as especially specious. Forwe have said that virginity without faith is not purity before God, and marriage, on account of faith, is pure, according to Titus 1, 16:Unto the pure all things are pure. We have said also this, thatoutward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to betransferred hither, because the Gospel requires purity of heart, anddoes not require the ceremonies of the Law. And it may occur thatthe heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were polygamists, is purer and burns less with lusts than that of many virgins who areeven truly continent. But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bearthe vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring tocleanness of heart and to the entire repentance. Besides, the saintswill know in the exercise of marriage how far it is profitable torestrain its use, and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess hisvessel in sanctification. Lastly, since marriage is pure, it isrightly said to those who are not continent in celibacy that theyshould marry wives in order to be pure. Thus the same law: Be yeclean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impurecelibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become puremarried priests]. 

The third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priestsis the heresy of Jovinian. Fine-sounding words! [Pity on our poorsouls, dear sirs; proceed gently!] This is a new crime, that marriage[which God instituted in Paradise] is a heresy! [In that case allthe world would be children of heretics. ] In the time of Jovinian theworld did not as yet know the law concerning perpetual celibacy. [This our adversaries know very well. ] Therefore it is an impudentfalsehood that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, orthat such marriage was then condemned by the Church. In suchpassages we can see what design the adversaries had in writing the_Confutation_. They judged that the ignorant would be thus mosteasily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy, if they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned bymany previous decisions of the Church. Thus they frequently citefalsely the judgment of the Church. Because they are not ignorant ofthis, they were unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology, lest this falsehood and these reproaches might be exposed. Ouropinion, however, as regards the case of Jovinian, concerning thecomparison of virginity and marriage, we have expressed above. Forwe do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neithervirginity nor marriage merits justification. 

By such false arguments they defend a law that is godless anddestructive to good morals. By such reasons they set the minds ofprinces firmly against God's judgment [the princes and bishops whobelieve this teaching will see whether their reasons will endure thetest when the hour of death arrives], in which God will call them toaccount as to why they have dissolved marriages, and why they havetortured [flogged and impaled] and killed priests [regardless of thecries, wails, and tears of so many widows and orphans]. For do notdoubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out, Gen. 4, 10, sothe blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly raged, will also cry out. And God will avenge this cruelty; there you willdiscover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you willperceive that in God's judgment no calumnies against God's Wordremain standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is grass, and allthe goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field [that theirarguments are straw and hay, and God a consuming fire, before whomnothing but God's Word can abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24]. 

Whatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselveswith the consciousness of right counsels, because even though thepriests would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet thisdisruption of marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty aremanifestly contrary to the will and Word of God. Neither doesnovelty or dissent delight our princes, but especially in a matterthat is not doubtful more regard had to be paid to the Word of Godthan to all other things. 

Part 29

Article XXIV (XII): _Of the Mass. _

At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we donot abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. Foramong us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the otherfestivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to useit, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual publicceremonies are observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments, and other like things. 

The adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of theLatin language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to howit profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer tohear in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand. They evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service, that it profits without being understood. We are unwilling tomalignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment ofthe reader. We mention them only for the purpose of stating inpassing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers areretained. 

Since ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach menScripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faithand fear [of God, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (forthese are the designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin languageon account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and wemingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may havesomething to learn, and by which faith and fear may be called forth. This custom has always existed in the churches. For although somemore frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns, nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their owntongue. [Therefore, this is not such a new departure. ] It has, however, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearinglessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, notbecause they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because theyare thus performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaicopinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]

The fact that we hold only Public or Common Mass [at which the peoplealso commune, not Private Mass] is no offense against the Churchcatholic. For in the Greek churches even to-day private Masses arenot held, but there is only a public Mass, and that on the Lord's Dayand festivals. In the monasteries daily Mass is held, but this isonly public. These are the traces of former customs. For nowhere dothe ancient writers before Gregory make mention of private Masses. We now omit noticing the nature of their origin. It is evident thatafter the mendicant monks began to prevail, from most false opinionsand on account of gain they were so increased that all good men for along time desired some limit to this thing. Although St. Franciswished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that eachfraternity should be content with a single common Mass daily, afterwards this was changed, either by superstition or for the sakeof gain. Thus, where it is of advantage, they themselves change theinstitutions of the Fathers; and afterwards they cite against us theauthority of the Fathers. Epiphanius writes that in Asia theCommunion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were nodaily Masses. And indeed he says that this custom was handed downfrom the apostles. For he speaks thus: Assemblies for Communion wereappointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbatheve, and the Lord's Day. 

Moreover, although the adversaries collect many testimonies on thistopic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult ofwords will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that thisline of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does notprove that the Mass confers grace er opere operato, or that, whenapplied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission ofvenial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. This one replyoverthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this_Confutation_, but in all writings which they have publishedconcerning the Mass. 

And this is the issue [the principal question] of the case of whichour readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judgesthat just as boxers contend with one another for their position, sothey should strive with their adversary concerning the controvertedpoint, and not permit him to wander beyond the case. In the samemanner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak on thesubject presented. And when the controverted point has beenthoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments on bothsides will be very easy. 

For in our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord'sSupper does not confer _grace ex opere operato_, and that, whenapplied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit forthem _ex opere operato_ the remission of sins, of guilt or ofpunishment. And of this position a clear and firm proof exists inthat it is impossible to obtain the remission of our sins on accountof our own work _ex opere operato_ [even when there is not a goodthought in the heart], but the terrors of sin and death must beovercome by faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge ofChrist, and believe that for Christ's sake we are forgiven, and thatthe merits and righteousness of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1:Being justified by faith, we have peace. These things are so sureand so firm that they can stand against all the gates of hell. 

If we are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has alreadybeen stated. For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and heathenopinion concerning the _opus operatum_. And nevertheless thisopinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely thenumber of masses. For masses are purchased to appease God's wrath, and by this work they wish to obtain the remission of guilt and ofpunishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary in every kindof life [health riches, prosperity, and success in business]. Theywish even to liberate the dead. Monks and sophists have taught thispharisaic opinion in the Church. 

But although our case has already been stated, yet, because theadversaries foolishly pervert many passages of Scripture to thedefense of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic. Inthe _Confutation_ they have said many things concerning "sacrifice, "although in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on accountof its ambiguity. We have set forth what those persons whose abuseswe condemn now understand as a sacrifice. Now, in order to explainthe passages of Scripture that have been wickedly perverted, it isnecessary in the beginning to set forth what a sacrifice is. Alreadyfor an entire period of ten years the adversaries have publishedalmost infinite volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of themthus far has given a definition of sacrifice. They only seize uponthe name "sacrifices" either from the Scriptures or the Fathers [andwhere they find it in the Concordances of the Bible apply it here, whether it fits or not]. Afterward they append their own dreams, asthough indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases them. 

Part 30

_What a Sacrifice Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice. _

[Now, lest we plunge blindly into this business, we must indicate, inthe first place, a distinction as to what is, and what is not, asacrifice. To know this is expedient and good for all Christians. ]Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, says that he is especially fondof divisions, because without these nothing can either be explainedor understood in speaking, and if he discovers any one skilful inmaking divisions, he says that he attends and follows his footstepsas those of a god. And he instructs the one dividing to separate themembers in their very joints, lest, like an unskilful cook, he breakto pieces some member. But the adversaries wonderfully despise theseprecepts, and, according to Plato, are truly _kakoi mageiroi_ (poorbutchers), since they break the members of "sacrifice, " as can beunderstood when we have enumerated the species of sacrifice. Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacramentand a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of thesebe either a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony orwork in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed tothe ceremony offers; as Baptism is a work, not which we offer to Godbut in which God baptizes us, i. E. , a minister in the place of God;and God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc. , according to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremonyor work which we render God in order to afford Him honor. 

Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there areno more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i. E. , a work which makessatisfaction for guilt and punishment, i. E. , one that reconciles God, or appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins forothers. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which doesnot merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered bythose who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks orreturn gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, orfor other benefits received. 

These two species of sacrifice we ought especially to have in viewand placed before the eyes in this controversy, as well as in manyother discussions; and especial care must be taken lest they beconfounded. But if the limits of this book would suffer it, we wouldadd the reasons for this division. For it has many testimonies inthe Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere. And all Leviticalsacrifices can be referred to these members as to their own homes[genera]. For in the Law certain sacrifices were named propitiatoryon account of their signification or similitude; not because theymerited the remission of sins before God, but because they meritedthe remission of sins according to the righteousness of the Law, inorder that those for whom they were made might not be excluded fromthat commonwealth [from the people of Israel]. Therefore they werecalled sin-offerings and burnt offerings for a trespass. Whereas theeucharistic sacrifices were the oblation, the drink-offering, thank-offerings, first-fruits, tithes. 

[Thus there have been in the Law emblems of the true sacrifice. ] Butin fact there has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches, which says, 10, 4: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and ofgoats should take away sins. And a little after, of the [obedienceand] will of Christ, v. 10: By the which will we are sanctified bythe offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And Isaiahinterprets the Law, in order that we may know that the death ofChrist is truly a satisfaction for our sins, or expiation, and thatthe ceremonies of the Law are not, wherefore he says, 53, 10: WhenThou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He will see His seed, etc. For the word employed here, _'shm_, signifies a victim fortransgression; which signified in the Law that a certain Victim wasto come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile God in orderthat men might know that God wishes to be reconciled to us, not onaccount of our own righteousnesses, but on account of the merits ofanother, namely, of Christ. Paul interprets the same word _'shm_ assin, Rom. 8, 3: For sin (God) condemned sin, i. E. , He punished sinfor sin, i. E. , by a Victim for sin. The significance of the word canbe the more easily understood from the customs of the heathen, which, we see, have been received from the misunderstood expressions of theFathers. The Latins called a victim that which in great calamities, where God seemed to be especially enraged, was offered to appeaseGod's wrath, a _piaculum_; and they sometimes sacrificed humanvictims, perhaps because they had heard that a human victim wouldappease God for the entire human race. The Greeks sometimes calledthem _katharmata_ and sometimes _peripsehmata_. Isaiah and Paul, therefore, mean that Christ became a victim i. E. , an expiation, thatby His merits, and not by our own, God might be reconciled. Therefore let this remain established in the case namely, that thedeath of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory sacrifice. For theLevitical propitiatory sacrifices were so called only to signify afuture expiation. On account of a certain resemblance, therefore, they were satisfactions redeeming the righteousness of the Law, lestthose persons who sinned should be excluded from the commonwealth. But after the revelation of the Gospel [and after the true sacrificehas been accomplished] they had to cease, and because they had tocease in the revelation of the Gospel, they were not trulypropitiations, since the Gospel was promised for this very reason, namely, to set forth a propitiation. 

Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices which are called sacrificesof praise, Lev. 3, 1 f. ; 7, 11 f. ; Ps. 56, 12 f. , namely, thepreaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, theafflictions of saints yea, all good works of saints. Thesesacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicableon behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, theremission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those whohave been reconciled. And such are the sacrifices of the NewTestament, as Peter teaches, 1. Ep. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, tooffer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, arecontrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human worksoffered _ex opere operato_, because spiritual refers to the movementsof the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1:Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which isyour reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, aservice in which God is known and apprehended by the mind, as happensin the movements of fear and trust towards God. Therefore it isopposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered _exopere operato_. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13, 15, teaches the samething: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to Godcontinually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit ofour lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i. E. , prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not _exopere operato_, but on account of faith. This is taught by theclause: By Him let us offer, i. E. , by faith in Christ. 

In short, the worship of the New Testament is spiritual, i. E. , it isthe righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruits of faith. Itaccordingly abolishes the Levitical services. [In the New Testamentno offering avails _ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis_, i. E. On account of the work, without a good thought in the heart. ] AndChrist says, John 4, 23. 24: True worshipers shall worship the Fatherin spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spiritand in truth [that is from the heart, with heartfelt fear and cordialfaith]. This passage clearly condemns [as absolutely devilish, pharisaical, and antichristian] opinions concerning sacrifices whichthey imagine, avail _ex opere operato_, and teaches that men ought toworship in spirit i. E. , with the dispositions of the heart and byfaith. [The Jews also did not understand their ceremonies aright, and imagined that they were righteous before God when they hadwrought works _ex opere operato_. Against this the prophets contendwith the greatest earnestness. ] Accordingly, the prophets also in theOld Testament condemn the opinion of the people concerning the opusoperatum and teach the righteousness and sacrifices of the Spirit. Jer. 7, 22. 23: For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerningburnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, etc. How do we supposethat the Jews received this arraignment, which seems to conflictopenly with Moses? For it was evident that God had given the fatherscommands concerning burnt offerings and victims. But Jeremiahcondemns the opinion concerning sacrifices which God had notdelivered namely, that these services should please Him _ex opereoperato_. But he adds concerning faith that God had commanded this:Hear Me, i. E. , believe Me that I am your God; that I wish to becomethus known when I pity and aid; neither have I need of your victims;believe that I wish to be God the Justifier and Savior, not onaccount of works, but on account of My word and promise, truly andfrom the heart seek and expect aid from Me. 

Ps. 50, 13. 15, which rejects the victims and requires prayer, alsocondemns the opinion concerning the opus operatum: Will I eat theflesh of bulls? etc. (Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I willdeliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. The Psalmist testifies thatthis is true service, that this is true honor, if we call upon Himfrom the heart. 

Likewise Ps. 40, 6: Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire;mine ears hast Thou opened, i. E. , Thou hast offered to me Thy Wordthat I might hear it, and Thou dost require that I believe Thy Wordand The promises, that Thou truly desirest to pity, to bring aid, etc. Likewise Ps. 51, 16. 17: Thou delightest not in burnt offering. Thesacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. Likewise Ps. 4, 5: Offer thesacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust [hope, V. ] in theLord. He bids us hope, and says that this is a righteous sacrifice, signifying that other sacrifices are not true and righteoussacrifices. And Ps. 116, 17: I will offer to Thee the sacrifices ofthanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord They callinvocation a sacrifice of thanksgiving. 

But Scripture is full of such testimonies as teach that sacrifices_ex opere operato_ do not reconcile God. Accordingly the NewTestament, since Levitical services have been abrogated, teaches thatnew and pure sacrifices will be made, namely, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the preaching of the Gospel, afflictions on account of the Gospel, and the like. 

And of these sacrifices Malachi speaks, 1, 11: From the rising of thesun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great amongthe Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto Myname and a pure offering. The adversaries perversely apply thispassage to the Mass, and quote the authority of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy, for even if it spoke most particularly of the Mass, it would not follow that the Mass justifies _ex opere operato_, orthat when applied to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc. The prophet says nothing of those things which the monks and sophistsimpudently fabricate. Besides, the very words of the prophet expresshis meaning. For they first say this, namely, that the name of theLord will be great. This is accomplished by the preaching of theGospel. For through this the name of Christ is made known, and themercy of the Father, promised in Christ is recognized. The preachingof the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel. Theycall upon God, they give thanks to God, they bear afflictions fortheir confession, they produce good works for the glory of Christ. Thus the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles. Therefore incense and a pure offering signify not a ceremony _exopere operato_ [not the ceremony of the Mass alone], but all thosesacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great, namely, faith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, etc. Andif any one would have this term embrace the ceremony [of the Mass], we readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremonyalone, nor teaches that the ceremony profits _ex opere operato_. Forjust as among the sacrifices of praise, i. E. , among the praises ofGod, we include the preaching of the Word so the reception itself ofthe Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving, but it does notjustify _ex opere operato_; neither is it to be applied to others soas to merit for them the remission of sins. But after a while weshall explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice. Yet, as Malachispeaks of all the services of the New Testament, and not only of theLord's Supper; likewise, as he does not favor the pharisaic opinionof the _opus operatum_, he is not against us, but rather aids us. For he requires services of the heart, through which the name of theLord becomes truly great. 

Another passage also is cited from Malachi 3, 3: And He shall purifythe sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they mayoffer unto the Lord an offering of righteousness. This passageclearly requires the sacrifices of the righteous, and hence does notfavor the opinion concerning the _opus operatum_. But the sacrificesof the sons of Levi i. E. , of those teaching in the New Testament, arethe preaching of the Gospel, and the good fruits of preaching, asPaul says, Rom. 15, 16: Ministering the Gospel of God, that theoffering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified bythe Holy Ghost, i. E. , that the Gentiles might be offerings acceptableto God by faith, etc. For in the Law the slaying of victims signifiedboth the death of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, by whichthis oldness of flesh should be mortified, and the new and eternallife be begun in us. 

But the adversaries everywhere perversely apply the name sacrifice tothe ceremony alone. They omit the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, and similar things, although the ceremony has beenestablished on account of these, and the New Testament ought to havesacrifices of the heart, and not ceremonials for sin that are to beperformed after the manner of the Levitical priesthood. 

They cite also the daily sacrifice (cf. Ex. 29, 38 f. ; Dan. 8, ll f. , 12, 11), that, just as in the Law there was a daily sacrifice, sothe Mass ought to be a daily sacrifice of the New Testament. Theadversaries have managed well if we permit ourselves to be overcomeby allegories. It is evident, however, that allegories do notproduce firm proofs [that in matters so highly important before Godwe must have a sure and clear word of God, and not introduce by forceobscure and foreign passages, such uncertain explanations do notstand the test of God's judgment]. Although we indeed readily sufferthe Mass to be understood as a daily sacrifice, provided that theentire Mass be understood, i. E. , the ceremony with the preaching ofthe Gospel, faith, invocation, and thanksgiving. For these joinedtogether are a daily sacrifice of the New Testament, because theceremony [of the Mass, or the Lord's Supper] was instituted onaccount of these things, neither is it to be separated from these. Paul says accordingly, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As often as ye eat this breadand drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come. But itin no way follows from this Levitical type that a ceremony justifying_ex opere operato_ is necessary, or ought to be applied on behalf ofothers, that it may merit for them the remission of sins. 

And the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also thepreaching of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4 f. Three parts of that dailysacrifice are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation, andthe oblation of wheat flour. The Law had pictures or shadows offuture things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entireworship of the New Testament are portrayed. The burning of the lambsignifies the death of Christ. The libation signifies thateverywhere in the entire world, by the preaching of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that Lamb, i. E. , sanctified, as Peter says, 1. Ep. 1, 2: Through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Theoblation of wheat flour signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving inhearts. As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived, so in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not anothertype, as sufficient for a sacrifice. 

Therefore, although a ceremony is a memorial of Christ's death, nevertheless it alone is not the daily sacrifice; but the memoryitself is the daily sacrifice, i. E. , preaching and faith, which trulybelieves that, by the death of Christ, God has been reconciled. Alibation is required, i. E. , the effect of preaching, in order that, being sprinkled by the Gospel with the blood of Christ, we may besanctified, as those put to death and made alive. Oblations also arerequired, i. E. , thanksgiving, confessions, and afflictions. 

Thus the pharisaic opinion of the _opus operatum_ being cast aside, let us understand that spiritual worship and a daily sacrifice of theheart are signified, because in the New Testament the substance ofgood things should be sought for [as Paul says: In the Old Testamentis the shadow of things to come but the body and the truth is inChrist], i. E. , the Holy Ghost, mortification, and quickening. Fromthese things it is sufficiently apparent that the type of the dailysacrifice testifies nothing against us, but rather for us, because weseek for all the parts signified by the daily sacrifice. [We haveclearly shown all the parts that belonged to the daily sacrifice inthe law of Moses, that it must mean a true cordial offering, not an_opus operatum_. ] The adversaries falsely imagine that the ceremonyalone is signified, and not also the preaching of the Gospel, mortification, and quickening of heart, etc. [which is the best partof the Mass, whether they call it a sacrifice or anything else]. 

Now, therefore, good men will be able to judge readily that thecomplaint against us that we abolish the daily sacrifice is mostfalse. Experience shows what sort of Antiochi they are who holdpower in the Church; who under the pretext of religion assume tothemselves the kingdom of the world, and who rule without concern forreligion and the teaching of the Gospel; who wage war like kings ofthe world, and have instituted new services in the Church. For inthe Mass the adversaries retain only the ceremony, and publicly applythis to sacrilegious gain. Afterward they feign that this work, asapplied on behalf of others, merits for them grace and all goodthings. In their sermons they do not teach the Gospel, they do notconsole consciences they do not show that sins are freely remittedfor Christ's sake, but they set forth the worship of saints, humansatisfactions, human traditions, and by these they affirm that menare justified before God. And although some of these traditions aremanifestly godless, nevertheless they defend them by violence. Ifany preachers wish to be regarded more learned, they treat ofphilosophical questions, which neither the people nor even those whopropose them understand. Lastly, those who are more tolerable teachthe Law, and say nothing concerning the righteousness of faith. 

The adversaries in the _Confutation_ make a great ado concerning thedesolation of churches, namely, that the altars stand unadorned, without candles and without images. These trifles they regard asornaments to churches. [Although it is not true that we abolish allsuch outward ornaments; yet, even if it were so, Daniel is notspeaking of such things as are altogether external and do not belongto the Christian Church. ] It is a far different desolation whichDaniel means, 11, 31; 12, 11, namely, ignorance of the Gospel. Forthe people, overwhelmed by the multitude and variety of traditionsand opinions, were in no way able to embrace the sum of Christiandoctrine. [For the adversaries preach mostly of human ordinances, whereby consciences are led from Christ to confidence in their ownworks. ] For who of the people ever understood the doctrine ofrepentance of which the adversaries treat? And yet this is the chieftopic of Christian doctrine. 

Consciences were tormented by the enumeration of offenses and bysatisfactions. Of faith by which we freely receive the remission ofsins, no mention whatever was made by the adversaries. Concerningthe exercises of faith struggling with despair, and the freeremission of sins for Christ's sake, all the books and all thesermons of the adversaries were silent [worse than worthless, and, moreover, caused untold damage]. To these, the horrible profanationof the masses and many other godless services in the churches wereadded. This is the desolation which Daniel describes. 

On the contrary, by the favor of God, the priests among us attend tothe ministry of the Word, teach the Gospel concerning the blessingsof Christ, and show that the remission of sins occurs freely forChrist's sake. This doctrine brings sure consolation to consciences. The doctrine of [the Ten Commandments and] good works which Godcommands is also added. The worth and use of the Sacraments aredeclared. 

But if the use of the Sacrament would be the daily sacrifice, nevertheless we would retain it rather than the adversaries, becausewith them priests hired for pay use the Sacrament. With us there isa more frequent and more conscientious use. For the people use it, but after having first been instructed and examined. For men aretaught concerning the true use of the Sacrament that it wasinstituted for the purpose of being a seal and testimony of the freeremission of sins, and that, accordingly, it ought to admonishalarmed consciences to be truly confident and believe that their sinsare freely remitted. Since, therefore, we retain both the preachingof the Gospel and the lawful use of the Sacrament, the dailysacrifice remains with us. 

And if we must speak of the outward appearance, attendance uponchurch is better among us than among the adversaries. For theaudiences are held by useful and clear sermons. But neither thepeople nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of theadversaries. [There is nothing that so attaches people to the churchas good preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out ofthe churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts ofChristian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and otherfables. ] And the true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, andclear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, ardent prayer, andthe like. Candles, golden vessels [tapers, altar-cloths, images], and similar adornments are becoming, but they are not the adornmentthat properly belongs to the Church. But if the adversaries makeworship consist in such matters, and not in the preaching of theGospel, in faith, and the conflicts of faith they are to be numberedamong those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their God with goldand silver, Dan. 11, 38. 

They quote also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5, 1: Every highpriest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertainingto God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Hencethey conclude that, since in the New Testament there are high priestsand priests, it follows that there is also a sacrifice for sins. This passage particularly makes an impression on the unlearned, especially when the pomp of the priesthood [the garments of Aaron, since in the Old Testament there were many ornaments of gold, silver, and purple] and the sacrifices of the Old Testament are spread beforethe eyes. This resemblance deceives the ignorant, so that they judgethat, according to the same manner, a ceremonial sacrifice ought toexist among us, which should be applied on behalf of the sins ofothers, just as in the Old Testament. Neither is the service of themasses and the rest of the polity of the Pope anything else thanfalse zeal in behalf of the misunderstood Levitical polity. [Theyhave not understood that the New Testament is occupied with othermatters, and that, if such ceremonies are used for the training ofthe young, a limit must be fixed for them. ]

And although our belief has its chief testimonies in the Epistle tothe Hebrews, nevertheless the adversaries distort against usmutilated passages from this Epistle, as in this very passage, whereit is said that every high priest is ordained to offer sacrifices forsins. Scripture itself immediately adds that Christ is High Priest, Heb. 5, 5. 6. 10. The preceding words speak of the Leviticalpriesthood, and signify that the Levitical priesthood was an image ofthe priesthood of Christ. For the Levitical sacrifices for sins didnot merit the remission of sins before God; they were only an imageof the sacrifice of Christ, which was to be the one propitiatorysacrifice, as we have said above. Therefore the Epistle is occupiedto a great extent with the topic that the ancient priesthood and theancient sacrifices were instituted not for the purpose of meritingthe remission of sins before God or reconciliation, but only tosignify the future sacrifice of Christ alone. For in the OldTestament it was necessary for saints to be justified by faithderived from the promise of the remission of sins that was to begranted for Christ's sake, just as saints are also justified in theNew Testament. From the beginning of the world it was necessary forall saints to believe that Christ would be the promised offering andsatisfaction for sins, as Isaiah teaches, 53, 10: When Thou shaltmake His soul an offering for sin. 

Since, therefore, in the Old Testament, sacrifices did not meritreconciliation, unless by a figure (for they merited civilreconciliation), but signified the coming sacrifice, it follows thatChrist is the only sacrifice applied on behalf of the sins of others. Therefore, in the New Testament no sacrifice is left to be appliedfor the sins of others, except the one sacrifice of Christ upon thecross. 

They altogether err who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited theremission of sins before God, and, by this example in addition to thedeath of Christ, require in the New Testament sacrifices that are tobe applied on behalf of others. This imagination absolutely destroysthe merit of Christ's passion and the righteousness of faith, andcorrupts the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and instead ofChrist makes for us other mediators and propitiators out of thepriests and sacrificers, who daily sell their work in the churches. 

Therefore, if any one would thus infer that in the New Testament apriest is needed to make offering for sins, this must be concededonly of Christ. And the entire Epistle to the Hebrews confirms thisexplanation. And if, in addition to the death of Christ, we were toseek for any other satisfaction to be applied for the sins of othersand to reconcile God, this would be nothing more than to make othermediators in addition to Christ. Again, as the priesthood of the NewTestament is the ministry of the Spirit, as Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 6, it, accordingly, has but the one sacrifice of Christ, which issatisfactory and applied for the sins of others. Besides it has nosacrifices like the Levitical, which could be applied _ex opereoperato_ on behalf of others, but it tenders to others the Gospel andthe Sacraments, that by means of these they may conceive faith andthe Holy Ghost and be mortified and quickened, because the ministryof the Spirit conflicts with the application of an _opus operatum_. [For, unless there is personal faith and a life wrought by the HolySpirit, the _opus operatum_ of another cannot render me godly norsave me. ] For the ministry of the Spirit is that through which theHoly Ghost is efficacious in hearts; and therefore this ministry isprofitable to others, when it is efficacious in them, and regeneratesand quickens them. This does not occur by the application _ex opereoperato_ of the work of another on behalf of others. 

We have shown the reason why the Mass does not justify _ex opereoperato_, and why, when applied on behalf of others, it does notmerit remission, because both conflict with the righteousness offaith. For it is impossible that remission of sins should occur, andthe terrors of death and sin be overcome by any work or anything, except by faith in Christ, according to Rom. 5, 1: Being justified byfaith, we have peace. 

In addition, we have shown that the Scriptures, which are citedagainst us, in no way favor the godless opinion of the adversariesconcerning the opus operatum. All good men among all nations canjudge this. Therefore the error of Thomas is to be rejected, whowrote: That the body of the Lord, once offered on the cross fororiginal debt, is continually offered for daily offenses on the altarin order that, in this, the Church might have a service whereby toreconcile God to herself. The other common errors are also to berejected, as, that the Mass _ex opere operato_ confers grace upon oneemploying it; likewise that when applied for others, even for wickedpersons, provided they do not interpose an obstacle, it merits forthem the remission of sins, of guilt and punishment. All thesethings are false and godless, and lately invented by unlearned monks, and obscure the glory of Christ's passion and the righteousness offaith. 

And from these errors infinite others sprang, as, that the massesavail when applied for many, just as much as when appliedindividually. The sophists have particular degrees of merit, just asmoney-changers have grades of weight for gold or silver. Besidesthey sell the Mass, as a price for obtaining what each one seeks: tomerchants, that business may be prosperous; to hunters, that huntingmay be successful, and infinite other things. Lastly, they apply italso to the dead; by the application of the Sacrament they liberatesouls from the pains of purgatory; although without faith the Mass isof service not even to the living. Neither are the adversaries ableto produce even one syllable from the Scriptures in defense of thesefables which they teach with great authority in the Church, neitherdo they have the testimonies of the ancient Church nor of the Fathers. [Therefore they are impious and blind people who knowingly despiseand trample under foot the plain truth of God. ]

Part 31

_What the Fathers Thought concerning Sacrifice. _

And since we have explained the passages of Scripture which are citedagainst us, we must reply also concerning the Fathers. We are notignorant that the Mass is called by the Fathers a sacrifice; but theydo not mean that the Mass confers grace _ex opere operato_, and that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission ofsins, of guilt and punishment. Where are such monstrous stories tobe found in the Fathers? But they openly testify that they arespeaking of thanksgiving. Accordingly they call it a eucharist. Wehave said above, however, that a eucharistic sacrifice does not meritreconciliation, but is made by those who have been reconciled, justas afflictions do not merit reconciliation, but are eucharisticsacrifices when those who have been reconciled endure them. 

And this reply, in general, to the sayings of the Fathers defends ussufficiently against the adversaries. For it is certain that thesefigments concerning the merit of the opus operatum are found nowherein the Fathers. But in order that the whole case may be the betterunderstood, we also shall state those things concerning the use ofthe Sacrament which actually harmonize with the Fathers and Scripture. 

Part 32

Some clever men imagine that the Lord's Supper was instituted for tworeasons. First, that it might be a mark and testimony of profession, just as a particular shape of hood is the sign of a particularprofession. Then they think that such a mark was especially pleasingto Christ, namely, a feast to signify mutual union and friendshipamong Christians, because banquets are signs of covenant andfriendship. But this is a secular view; neither does it show thechief use of the things delivered by God; it speaks only of theexercise of love, which men, however profane and worldly, understand, it does not speak of faith, the nature of which few understand. 

The Sacraments are signs of God's will toward us, and not merelysigns of men among each other, and they are right in defining thatSacraments in the New Testament are signs of grace. And because in asacrament there are two things, a sign and the Word, the Word, in theNew Testament, is the promise of grace added. The promise of the NewTestament is the promise of the remission of sins, as the text, Luke22, 19, says: This is My body, which is given for you. This cup isthe New Testament in My blood which is shed for many for theremission of sins. Therefore the Word offers the remission of sins. And a ceremony is, as it were, a picture or seal, as Paul, Rom. 4, 11, calls it, of the Word, making known the promise. Therefore, just asthe promise is useless unless it is received by faith, so a ceremonyis useless unless such faith is added as is truly confident that theremission of sins is here offered. And this faith encouragescontrite minds. And just as the Word has been given in order toexcite this faith, so the Sacrament has been instituted in order thatthe outward appearance meeting the eyes might move the heart tobelieve [and strengthen faith]. For through these, namely, throughWord and Sacrament, the Holy Ghost works. 

And such use of the Sacrament, in which faith quickens terrifiedhearts, is a service of the New Testament, because the New Testamentrequires spiritual dispositions, mortification and quickening. [Foraccording to the New Testament the highest service of God is renderedinwardly in the heart. ] And for this use Christ instituted it, sinceHe commanded them thus to do in remembrance of Him. For to rememberChrist is not the idle celebration of a show [not something that isaccomplished only by some gestures and actions], or one institutedfor the sake of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses iscelebrated in tragedies, but it is to remember the benefits of Christand receive them by faith so as to be quickened by them. Psalm 111, 4. 5 accordingly says: He hath made His wonderful works to beremembered: the Lord is gracious and full of compassion. He hathgiven meat unto them that fear Him. For it signifies that the willand mercy of God should be discerned in the ceremony. But that faithwhich apprehends mercy quickens. And this is the principal use ofthe Sacrament, in which it is apparent who are fit for the Sacrament, namely, terrified consciences and how they ought to use it. 

The sacrifice [thank-offering or thanksgiving] also is added. Forthere are several ends for one object. After conscience encouragedby faith has perceived from what terrors it is freed, then indeed itfervently gives thanks for the benefit and passion of Christ, anduses the ceremony itself to the praise of God, in order by thisobedience to show its gratitude; and testifies that it holds in highesteem the gifts of God. Thus the ceremony becomes a sacrifice ofpraise. 

And the Fathers, indeed, speak of a twofold effect, of the comfort ofconsciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise. The former of theseeffects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the Sacrament; thelatter pertains to the sacrifice. Of consolation Ambrose says: Go toHim and be absolved, because He is the remission of sins. Do you askwho He is? Hear Him when He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life;he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Meshall never thirst. This passage testifies that in the Sacrament theremission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this ought to bereceived by faith. Infinite testimonies to this effect are found inthe Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the _opusoperatum_, and to a work to be applied on behalf of others; althoughthe Fathers clearly require faith, and speak of the consolationbelonging to every one, and not of the application. 

Besides these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving, such as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning thosecommuning in a godly way. Piety, says he, in thanksgiving theBestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between whathas been given and what has been forgiven, i. E. , piety regards bothwhat has been given and what has been forgiven, i. E. , it compares thegreatness of God's blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin anddeath, with each other, and gives thanks, etc. And hence the termeucharist arose in the Church. Nor indeed is the ceremony itself, the giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf ofothers, in order to merit for them the remission of sins, etc. , inorder to liberate the souls of the dead. These things conflict withthe righteousness of faith, as though, without faith, a ceremony canprofit either the one performing it or others. 

Part 33

_Of the Term Mass. _

The adversaries also refer us to philology. From the names of theMass they derive arguments which do not require a long discussion. For even though the Mass be called a sacrifice, it does not followthat it must confer grace _ex opere operato_, or, when applied onbehalf of others, merit for them the remission of sins, etc. _Leitourgia_, they say, signifies a sacrifice, and the Greeks callthe Mass liturgy. Why do they here omit the old appellation synaxris, which shows that the Mass was formerly the communion of many? Butlet us speak of the word liturgy. This word done not properlysignify a sacrifice, but rather the public ministry, and agrees aptlywith our belief, namely, that one minister who consecrates tendersthe body and blood of the lord to the rest of the people, just as oneminister who preaches tenders the Gospel to the people, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 4, 1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christand stewards of the mysteries of God, i. E. , of the Gospel and theSacraments. And 2 Cor. 5, 20: We are ambassadors for Christ asthough God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Beye reconciled to God. Thus the term _Leitourgia_ agrees aptly withthe ministry. For it is an old word, ordinarily employed in publiccivil administrations, and signified to the Greeks public burdens, astribute, the expense of equipping a fleet, or similar things, as theoration of Demosthenes, _FOR LEPTINES_, testifies, all of which isoccupied with the discussion of public duties and immunities:_Phehsei de anaxious tinas anthrohpous euromenous ateleianekdedukenai tas leitourgias_, i. E. : He will say that some unworthymen, having found an immunity, have withdrawn from public burdens. And thus they spoke in the time of the Romana, as the rescript ofPertinax, _De Iure Immunitatis_, l. Semper, shows: _Ei kai mehpasohn leitourgiohn tous pateras ho tohn teknohn arithmos aneitai_, Even though the number of children does not liberate parents from allpublic burdens. And the Commentary upon Demosthenes states that_leitourgia_ is a kind of tribute, the expense of the games, theexpense of equipping vessels, of attending to the gymnasia andsimilar public offices. And Paul in 2 Cor. 9, 12 employs it for acollection. The taking of the collection not only supplies thosethings which are wanting to the saints, but also causes them to givemore thanks abundantly to God, etc. And in Phil. 2, 25 he callsEpaphroditus a _leitourgos_, one who ministered to my wants, whereassuredly a sacrificer cannot be understood. But there is no need ofmore testimonies, since examples are everywhere obvious to thosereading the Greek writers, in whom _leitourgia_ is employed forpublic civil burdens or ministries. And on account of the diphthong, grammarians do not derive it from _liteh_, which signifies prayers, but from public goods, which they call _leita_, so that _leitourgeoh_means, I attend to, I administer public goods. 

Ridiculous is their inference that, since mention is made in the HolyScriptures of an altar, therefore the Mass must be a sacrifice; forthe figure of an altar is referred to by Paul only by way ofcomparison. And they fabricate that the Mass has been so called from_mzbh_, an altar. What need is there of an etymology so far fetched, unless it be to show their knowledge of the Hebrew language? Whatneed is there to seek the etymology from a distance, when the termMass is found in Deut. 16, 10, where it signifies the collections orgifts of the people, not the offering of the priest? For individualscoming to the celebration of the Passover were obliged to bring somegift as a contribution. In the beginning the Christians alsoretained this custom. Coming together they brought bread, wine, andother things, as the Canons of the Apostles testify. Thence a partwas taken to be consecrated; the rest was distributed to the poor. With this custom they also retained Mass as the name of thecontributions. And on account of such contributions it appears alsothat the Mass was elsewhere called _agapeh_, unless one would preferthat it was so called on account of the common feast. But let usomit these trifles. For it is ridiculous that the adversaries shouldproduce such trifling conjectures concerning a matter of such greatimportance. For although the Mass is called an offering, in whatdoes the term favor the dreams concerning the _opus operatum_, andthe application which, they imagine, merits for others the remissionof sins? And it can be called an offering for the reason thatprayers, thanksgivings, and the entire worship are there offered, asit is also called a eucharist. But neither ceremonies nor prayersprofit _ex opere operato_, without faith. Although we are disputinghere not concerning prayers, but particularly concerning the Lord'sSupper. 

[Here you can see what rude asses our adversaries are. They say thatthe term _missa_ is derived from the term _misbeach_, which signifiesan altar; hence we are to conclude that the Mass is a sacrifice; forsacrifices are offered on an altar. Again, the word _liturgia_, bywhich the Greeks call the Mass, is also to denote a sacrifice. Thisclaim we shall briefly answer. All the world sees that from suchreasons this heathenish and antichristian error does not follownecessarilv, that the Mass benefits _ex opere operato sine bono motuutentis_. Therefore they are asses, because in such a highlyimportant matter they bring forward such silly things. Nor do theasses know any grammar. For missa and liturgia do not mean sacrifice. _Missa_, in Hebrew, denotes a joint contribution. For this may havebeen a custom among Christians, that they brought meat and drink forthe benefit of the poor to their assemblies. This custom was derivedfrom the Jews, who had to bring such contributions on their festivals, these they called _missa_. Likewise, _liturgia_, in Greek, reallydenotes an office in which a person ministers to the congregation. This is well applied to our teaching, because with us the priest, asa common servant of those who wish to commune, ministers to them theholy Sacrament. 

Some think that _missa_ is not derived from the Hebrew, but signifiesas much as _remissio_ the forgiveness of sin. For, the communionbeing ended, the announcement used to be made: _Ite, missa est_:Depart, you have forgiveness of sins. They cite, as proof that thisis so, the fact that the Greeks used to say: _Lais Aphesis (laoisaphsesis)_, which also means that they had been pardoned. If thiswere so, it would be an excellent meaning, for in connection withthis ceremony forgiveness of sins must always be preached andproclaimed. But the case before us is little aided, no matter whatthe meaning of the word _missa_ is. ]

The Greek canon says also many things concerning the offering, but itshows plainly that it is not speaking properly of the body and bloodof the Lord, but of the whole service of prayers and thanksgivings. For it says thus: _Kai poiehson hemas axious genesthai touprospserein soi deehseis kai hikesias kai thusias anaimaktous huperpantos laou. _ When this is rightly understood, it gives no offense. For it prays that we be made worthy to offer prayers andsupplications and bloodless sacrifices for the people. For he callseven prayers bloodless sacrifices. Just as also a little afterward:_Eti prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn kai anaimakton latreian_, We offer, he says this reasonable and bloodless service. For theyexplain this inaptly who would rather interpret this of a reasonablesacrifice, and transfer it to the very body of Christ, although thecanon speaks of the entire worship, and in opposition to the _opusoperatum_ Paul has spoken of _logikeh latreia_ [reasonable service], namely, of the worship of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, ofthanksgiving, etc. 

Part 34

_Of the Mass for the Dead. _

Our adversaries have no testimonies and no command from Scripture fordefending the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls ofthe dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue. Nor, indeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the Churchwithout the command of God and without the example of Scripture, andto apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was instituted forcommemoration and preaching among the living [for the purpose ofstrengthening the faith of those who use the ceremony]. This is toviolate the Second Commandment, by abusing God's name. 

For, in the first place, it is a dishonor to the Gospel to hold thata ceremony _ex opere operato_, without faith, is a sacrificereconciling God, and making satisfaction for sins. It is a horriblesaying to ascribe as much to the work of a priest as to the death ofChrist. Again, sin and death cannot be overcome unless by faith inChrist, as Paul teaches, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we havepeace with God, and therefore the punishment of purgatory cannot beovercome by the application of the work of another. 

Now we shall omit the sort of testimonies concerning purgatory thatthe adversaries have: what kinds of punishments they think there arein purgatory, what grounds the doctrine of satisfactions has, whichwe have shown above to be most vain. We shall only present this inopposition: It is certain that the Lord's Supper was instituted onaccount of the remission of guilt. For it offers the remission ofsins, where it is necessary that guilt be truly understood. [Forwhat consolation would we have if forgiveness of sin were hereoffered us, and yet there would be no remission of guilt?] Andnevertheless it does not make satisfaction for guilt, otherwise theMass would be equal to the death of Christ. Neither can theremission of guilt be received in any other way than by faith. Therefore the Mass is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacramentthat require faith. 

And, indeed, it is necessary that all godly persons be seized withthe most bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]if they consider that the Mass has been in great part transferred tothe dead and to satisfactions for punishments. This is to banish thedaily sacrifice from the Church; this is the kingdom of Antiochus, who transferred the most salutary promises concerning the remissionof guilt and concerning faith to the most vain opinions concerningsatisfactions; this is to defile the Gospel, to corrupt the use ofthe Sacraments. These are the persons [the real blasphemers] whomPaul has said, 1 Cor. 11, 27, to be guilty of the body and blood ofthe Lord, who have suppressed the doctrine concerning faith and theremission of sins, and, under the pretext of satisfactions, havedevoted the body and blood of the Lord to sacrilegious gain. Andthey will at some time pay the penalty for this sacrilege. [God willone day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great, horrible wrath upon them. ] Therefore we and all godly consciencesshould be on our guard against approving the abuses of theadversaries. 

But let us return to the case. Since the Mass is not a satisfaction, either for punishment or for guilt, _ex opere operato_, without faith, it follows that the application on behalf of the dead is useless. Nor is there need here of a longer discussion. For it is evidentthat these applications on behalf of the dead have no testimoniesfrom the Scriptures. Neither is it safe, without the authority ofScripture, to institute forms of worship in the Church. And if itwill at any time be necessary, we shall speak at greater lengthconcerning this entire subject. For why should we now contend withadversaries who understand neither what a sacrifice, nor what asacrament, nor what remission of sins, nor what faith is?

Neither does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction forthe dead, because it applies it equally for all the blessedpatriarchs, prophets, apostles. It appears therefore that the Greeksmake an offering as thanksgiving, and do not apply it as satisfactionfor punishments. [For, of course, it is not their intention todeliver the prophets and apostles from purgatory, but only to offerup thanks along and together with them for the exalted eternalblessings that have been given to them and us. ] Although they speak, moreover, not of the offering alone of the body and blood of the Lord, but of the other parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving. For after the consecration they pray that it may profit those whopartake of it, they do not speak of others. Then they add: _Etiprospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn latreian huper tohn en pisteianapausamenohn propatorohn, paterohn, patriarchohn, prophertohn, apostolohn_, etc. ["Yet we offer to you this reasonable service forthose having departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchsprophets, apostles, " etc. ] Reasonable service, however, does notsignify the offering itself, but prayers and all things which arethere transacted. Now, as regards the adversaries' citing theFathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that theancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit, butwe disapprove of the application _ex opere operato_ of the Lord'sSupper on behalf of the dead. Neither do the ancients favor theadversaries concerning the _opus operatum_. And even though theyhave the testimonies especially of Gregory or the moderns, we opposeto them the most clear and certain Scriptures. And there is a greatdiversity among the Fathers. They were men, and could err and bedeceived. Although if they would now become alive again, and wouldsee their sayings assigned as pretexts for the notorious falsehoodswhich the adversaries teach concerning the opus operatum, they wouldinterpret themselves far differently. 

The adversaries also falsely cite against us the condemnation ofAerius, who, they say was condemned for the reason that he deniedthat in the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead. They frequently use this dexterous turn, cite the ancient heresiesand falsely compare our cause with these in order by this comparisonto crush us. [The asses are not ashamed of any lies. Nor do theyknow who Aerius was and what he taught. ] Epiphanius testifies thatAerius held that prayers for the dead are useless. With this hefinds fault. Neither do we favor Aerius, but we on our part arecontending with you who are defending a heresy manifestly conflictingwith the prophets, apostles and holy Fathers, namely, that the Massjustifies _ex opere operato_, that it merits the remission of guiltand punishment even for the unjust, to whom it is applied, if they donot present an obstacle. Of these pernicious errors, which detractfrom the glory of Christ's passion, and entirely overthrow thedoctrine concerning the righteousness of faith, we disapprove. Therewas a similar persuasion of the godless in the Law, namely, that theymerited the remission of sins, not freely by faith, but throughsacrifices _ex opere operato_. Therefore they increased theseservices and sacrifices, instituted the worship of Baal in Israel, and even sacrificed in the groves in Judah. Therefore the prophetscondemn this opinion, and wage war not only with the worshipers ofBaal, but also with other priests who, with this godless opinion, made sacrifices ordained by God. But this opinion inheres in theworld, and always will inhere namely, that services and sacrificesare propitiations. Carnal men cannot endure that alone to thesacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation, because they do not understand the righteousness of faith, butascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices. Justas, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinionconcerning sacrifices inhered, just as in Israel, Baalitic servicescontinued, and, nevertheless, a Church of God was there whichdisapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in thedomain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply, that by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guiltand punishment. [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i. E. , somesaints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i. E. , some saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has notentirely perished. ] And it seems that this Baalitic worship willendure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come tojudge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist. Meanwhile all who truly believe the Gospel [that they may trulyhonor God and have a constant comfort against sins; for God hasgraciously caused His Gospel to shine, that we might be warned andsaved] ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary toGod's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and therighteousness of faith. 

We have briefly said these things of the Mass in order that all goodmen in all parts of the world may be able to understand that with thegreatest zeal we maintain the dignity of the Mass and show its trueuse, and that we have the most just reasons for dissenting from theadversaries. And we would have all good men admonished not to aidthe adversaries in the profanation of the Mass lest they burdenthemselves with other men's sin. It is a great cause and a greatsubject not inferior to the transaction of the prophet Elijah, whocondemned the worship of Baal. We have presented a case of suchimportance with the greatest moderation, and now reply withoutcasting any reproach. But if the adversaries will compel us tocollect all kinds of abuses of the Mass, the case will not be treatedwith such forbearance. 

Part 35

Article XXVII (XIII): _Of Monastic Vows. _

In the town of Eisenach, in Thuringia, there was, to our knowledge, amonk, John Hilten, who, thirty years ago, was cast by his fraternityinto prison because he had protested against certain most notoriousabuses. For we have seen his writings, from which it can be wellunderstood what the nature of his doctrine was [that he was aChristian, and preached according to the Scriptures]. And those whoknew him testify that he was a mild old man, and serious indeed, butwithout moroseness. He predicted many things, some of which havethus far transpired, and others still seem to impend which we do notwish to recite, lest it may be inferred that they are narrated eitherfrom hatred toward one or from partiality to another. But finally, when, either on account of his age or the foulness of the prison, hefell into disease, he sent for the guardian in order to tell him ofhis sickness; and when the guardian, inflamed with pharisaic hatred, had begun to reprove the man harshly on account of his kind ofdoctrine, which seemed to be injurious to the kitchen, then, omittingall mention of his sickness, he said with a sigh that he was bearingthese injuries patiently for Christ's sake, since he had indeedneither written nor taught anything which could overthrow theposition of the monks, but had only protested against some well-knownabuses. But another one he said, will come in A. D. 1516, who willdestroy you, neither will you be able to resist him. This veryopinion concerning the downward career of the power of the monks, andthis number of years, his friends afterwards found also written byhim in his commentaries, which he had left, concerning certainpassages of Daniel. But although the outcome will teach how muchweight should be given to this declaration, yet there are other signswhich threaten a change in the power of the monks, that are no lesscertain than oracles. For it is evident how much hypocrisy, ambition, avarice there is in the monasteries, how much ignorance and crueltyamong all the unlearned, what vanity in their sermons and in devisingcontinually new means of gaining money. [The more stupid asses themonks are, the more stubborn, furious bitter, the more venomous aspsthey are in persecuting the truth and the Word of God. ] And there areother faults, which we do not care to mention. While they once were[not jails or everlasting prisons, but] schools for Christianinstruction, now they have degenerated, as though from a golden to aniron age, or as the Platonic cube degenerates into bad harmonies, which, Plato says brings destruction. [Now this precious gold isturned to dross, and the wine to water. ] All the most wealthymonasteries support only an idle crowd, which gluttonizes upon thepublic alms of the Church. Christ, however, teaches concerning thesalt that has lost its savor that it should be cast out and betrodden under foot, Matt. 5, 13. Therefore the monks by such moralsare singing their own fate [requiem, and it will soon be over withthem]. And now another sign is added, because they are in manyplaces, the instigators of the death of good men. [This blood ofAbel cries against them and] These murders God undoubtedly willshortly avenge. Nor indeed do we find fault with all, for we are ofthe opinion that there are here and there some good men in themonasteries who judge moderately concerning human and factitiousservices, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of thecruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise. 

But we are now discussing the kind of doctrine which the composers ofthe _Confutation_ are now defending and not the question whether vowsshould be observed. For we hold that lawful vows ought to beobserved; but whether these services merit the remission of sins andjustification; whether they are satisfactions for sins, whether theyare equal to Baptism, whether they are the observance of precepts andcounsels; whether they are evangelical perfection; whether they havethe merits of supererogation; whether these merits, when applied onbehalf of others save them, whether vows made with these opinions arelawful; whether vows are lawful that are undertaken under the pretextof religion, merely for the sake of the belly and idleness, whetherthose are truly vows that have been extorted either from theunwilling or from those who on account of age were not able to judgeconcerning the kind of life, whom parents or friends thrust into themonasteries that they might be supported at the public expense, without the loss of private patrimony, whether vows are lawful thatopenly tend to an evil issue, either because on account of weaknessthey are not observed, or because those who are in these fraternitiesare compelled to approve and aid the abuses of the Mass, the godlessworship of saints, and the counsels to rage against good men:concerning these questions we are treating. And although we havesaid very many things in the Confession concerning such vows as eventhe canons of the Popes condemn, nevertheless the adversaries commandthat all things which we have produced be rejected. For they haveused these words. 

And it is worth while to hear how they pervert our reasons, and whatthey adduce to fortify their own cause. Accordingly, we will brieflyrun over a few of our arguments, and in passing, explain away thesophistry of the adversaries in reference to them. Since, however, this entire cause has been carefully and fully treated by Luther inthe book to which he gave the title _De Votis Monasticis_, we wishhere to consider that book as reiterated. 

First, it is very certain that a vow is not lawful by which he whovows thinks that he merits the remission of sins before God, or makessatisfaction before God for sins. For this opinion is a manifestinsult to the Gospel, which teaches that the remission of sins isfreely granted us for Christ's sake, as has been said above at somelength. Therefore we have correctly quoted the declaration of Paulto the Galatians, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace. Those who seek the remission of sins not by faith in Christ, but bymonastic works detract from the honor of Christ, and crucify Christafresh. But hear, hear how the composers of the _Confutation_ escapein this place! They explain this passage of Paul only concerning theLaw of Moses, and they add that the monks observe all things forChrist's sake, and endeavor to live the nearer the Gospel in order tomerit eternal life. And they add a horrible peroration in thesewords: Wherefore those things are wicked that are here allegedagainst monasticism. O Christ, how long wilt Thou bear thesereproaches with which our enemies treat Thy Gospel? We have said inthe Confession that the remission of sins is received freely forChrist's sake, through faith. If this is not the very voice of theGospel, if it is not the judgment of the eternal Father, which Thouwho art in the bosom of the Father hast revealed to the world, we arejustly blamed. But Thy death is a witness, Thy resurrection is awitness, the Holy Ghost is a witness, Thy entire Church is a witness, that it is truly the judgment of the Gospel that we obtain remissionof sins, not on account of our merits, but on account of Thee, through faith. 

When Paul denies that by the Law of Moses men merit the remission ofsins, he withdraws this praise much more from human traditions, andthis he clearly testifies Col. 2, 16. If the Law of Moses, which wasdivinely revealed, did not merit the remission of sins, how much lessdo these silly observances [monasticism rosaries, etc. ], averse tothe civil custom of life, merit the remission of sins!

The adversaries feign that Paul abolishes the Law of Moses, and thatChrist succeeds in such a way that He does not freely grant theremission of sins, but on account of the works of other laws, if anyare now devised. By this godless and fanatical imagination they burythe benefit of Christ. Then they feign that among those who observethis Law of Christ, the monks observe it more closely than others, onaccount of their hypocritical poverty, obedience, and chastity, sinceindeed all these things are full of sham. In the greatest abundanceof all things they boast of poverty. Although no class of men hasgreater license than the monks [who have masterfully decreed thatthey are exempt from obedience to bishops and princes], they boast ofobedience. Of celibacy we do not like to speak, how pure this is inmost of those who desire to be continent, Gerson indicates. And howmany of them desire to be continent [not to mention the thoughts oftheir hearts]?

Of course, in this sham life the monks live more closely inaccordance with the Gospel! Christ does not succeed Moses in such away as to remit sins on account of our works, but so as to set Hisown merits and His own propitiation on our behalf against God's wraththat we may be freely forgiven. Now, he who apart from Christ'spropitiation, opposes his own merits to God's wrath, and on accountof his own merits endeavors to obtain the remission of sins, whetherhe present the works of the Mosaic Law, or of the Decalog, or of therule of Benedict, or of the rule of Augustine, or of other rules, annuls the promise of Christ, has cast away Christ, and has fallenfrom grace. This is the verdict of Paul. 

But, behold, most clement Emperor Charles behold, ye princes, behold, all ye ranks, how great is the impudence of the adversaries!Although we have cited the declaration of Paul to this effect, theyhave written: Wicked are those things that are here cited againstmonasticism. But what is more certain than that men obtain theremission of sins by faith for Christ's sake? And these wretchesdare to call this a wicked opinion! We do not at all doubt that ifyou had been advised of this passage, you would have taken [willtake] care that such blasphemy be removed from the _Confutation. _

But since it has been fully shown above that the opinion is wicked, that we obtain the remission of sins on account of our works, weshall be briefer at this place. For the prudent reader will easilybe able to reason thence that we do not merit the remission of sinsby monastic works. Therefore this blasphemy also is in no way to beendured which is read in

Thomas, that the monastic profession is equal to Baptism. It ismadness to make human tradition, which has neither God's command norpromise, equal to the ordinance of Christ which has both the commandand promise of God, which contains the covenant of grace and ofeternal life. 

Secondly. Obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided the latter isnot impure, are, as exercises, adiaphora [in which we are not to lookfor either sin or righteousness]. And for this reason the saints canuse these without impiety, just as Bernard, Franciscus, and otherholy men used them. And they used them on account of bodilyadvantage, that they might have more leisure to teach and to performother godly offices, and not that the works themselves are, bythemselves, works that justify or merit eternal life. Finally theybelong to the class of which Paul says, 1 Tim. 4, 8: Bodily exerciseprofiteth little. And it is credible that in some places there arealso at present good men, engaged in the ministry of the Word, whouse these observances without wicked opinions [without hypocrisy andwith the understanding that they do not regard their monasticism asholiness]. But to hold that these observances are services onaccount of which they are accounted just before God, and throughwhich they merit eternal life, conflicts with the Gospel concerningthe righteousness of faith, which teaches that for Christ's sakerighteousness and eternal life are granted us. It conflicts alsowith the saying of Christ, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. It conflicts alsowith this statement, Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But how can they affirm that they are services which God approves asrighteousness before Him when they have no testimony of God's Word?

But look at the impudence of the adversaries! They not only teachthat these observances are justifying services, but they add thatthese services are more perfect, i. E. Meriting more the remission ofsins and justification, than do other kinds of life [that they arestates of perfection, i. E. , holier and higher states than the rest, such as marriage, rulership]. And here many false and perniciousopinions concur. They imagine that they [are the most holy peoplewho] observe [not only] precepts and [but also] counsels [that is, the superior counsels, which Scripture issues concerning exaltedgifts, not by way of command but of advice]. Afterwards theseliberal men, since they dream that they have the merits ofsupererogation, sell these to others. All these things are full ofpharisaic vanity. For it is the height of impiety to hold that theysatisfy the Decalog in such a way that merits remain, while suchprecepts as these are accusing all the saints: Thou shalt love theLord, thy God, with all shine heart, Deut. 6, 5. Likewise: Thou shaltnot covet, Rom. 7, 7. [For

as the First Commandment of God (Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind ) ishigher than a man upon earth can comprehend as it is the highesttheology, from which all the prophets and all the apostles have drawnas from a spring their best and highest doctrines, yea, as it is suchan exalted commandment, according to which alone all divine service, all honor to God, every offering, all thanksgiving in heaven and uponearth, must be regulated and judged, so that all divine service highand precious and holy though it appear if it be not in accordancewith this commandment, is nothing but husks and shells without akernel, yea, nothing but filth and abomination before God; whichexalted commandment no saint whatever has perfectly fulfilled, sothat even Noah and Abraham, David, Peter and Paul acknowledgedthemselves imperfect and sinners: it is an unheard-of, pharisaic, yea, an actually diabolical pride for a sordid Barefooted monk or anysimilar godless hypocrite to say, yea, preach and teach, that he hasobserved and fulfilled the holy high commandment so perfectly, andaccording to the demands and will of God has done so many good works, that merit even superabounds to him. Yea, dear hypocrites, if theholy Ten Commandments and the exalted First Commandment of God werefulfilled as easily as the bread and remnants are put into the sack!They are shameless hypocrites with whom the world is plagued in thislast time. ] The prophet says, Ps. 116, 11: All men are liars, i. E. , not thinking aright concerning God, not fearing God sufficiently, notbelieving Him sufficiently. Therefore the monks falsely boast thatin the observance of a monastic life the commandments are fulfilled, and more is done than what is commanded [that their good works andseveral hundredweights of superfluous, superabundant holiness remainin store for them]. 

Again, this also is false, namely, that monastic observances areworks of the counsels of the Gospel. For the Gospel does not adviseconcerning distinctions of clothing and meats and the renunciation ofproperty. These are human traditions, concerning all of which it hasbeen said, 1 Cor. 8, 8: Meat commendeth us not to God. Thereforethey are neither justifying services nor perfection; yea, when theyare presented covered with these titles, they are mere doctrines ofdemons. 

Virginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has beensaid above. It is, however, a most pernicious error to hold thatevangelical perfection lies in human traditions. For thus the monkseven of the Mohammedans would be able to boast that they haveevangelical perfection. Neither does it lie in the observance ofother things which are called adiaphora, but because the kingdom ofGod is righteousness and life

in hearts, Rom. 14, 17, perfection is growth in the fear of God, andin confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and in devotion toone's calling just as Paul also describes perfection 2 Cor. 3, 18: Weare changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. He does not say: We are continually receiving another hood, or othersandals, or other girdles. It is deplorable that in the Church suchpharisaic, yea, Mohammedan expressions should be read and heard as, that the perfection of the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ, which iseternal life, should be placed in these foolish observances ofvestments and of similar trifles. 

Now hear our Areopagites [excellent teachers] as to what an unworthydeclaration they have recorded in the Confutation. Thus they say: Ithas been expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures that the monasticlife merits eternal life if maintained by a due observance, which bythe grace of God any monk can maintain; and, indeed, Christ haspromised this as much more abundant to those who have left home orbrothers, etc. , Matt. 19, 29. These are the words of the adversariesin which it is first said most impudently that it is expressed in theHoly Scriptures that a monastic life merits eternal life. For wheredo the Holy Scriptures speak of a monastic life! Thus theadversaries plead their case thus men of no account quote theScriptures. Although no one is ignorant that the monastic life hasrecently been devised, nevertheless they cite the authority ofScripture, and say, too, that this their decree has been expresslydeclared in the Scriptures. 

Besides, they dishonor Christ when they say that by monasticism menmerit eternal life. God has ascribed not even to His Law the honorthat it should merit eternal life, as He clearly says in Ezek. 20, 25:I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments wherebythey should not live. In the first place, it is certain that amonastic life does not merit the remission of sins, but we obtainthis by faith freely, as has been said above. Secondly, for Christ'ssake, through mercy, eternal life is granted to those who by faithreceive remission, and do not set their own merits against God'sjudgment, as Bernard also says with very great force: It is necessaryfirst of all to believe that you cannot have the remission of sineunless by God's indulgence. Secondly, that you can have no good workwhatever, unless He has given also this. Lastly, that you can meriteternal life by no works, unless this also is given freely. The restthat follows to the same effect we have above recited. Moreover, Bernard adds at the end: Let no one deceive himself, because if hewill reflect well, he will undoubtedly find that with ten thousand hecannot meet Him [namely, God] who cometh against him with twentythousand. Since however, we do not

merit the remission of sins or eternal life by the works of thedivine Law, but it is necessary to seek the mercy promised in Christ, much less is this honor of meriting the remission of sins or eternallife to be ascribed to monastic observances since they are mere humantraditions. 

Thus those who teach that the monastic life merits the remission ofsins or eternal life, and transfer the confidence due Christ to thesefoolish observances, altogether suppress the Gospel concerning thefree remission of sins and the promised mercy in Christ that is to beapprehended. Instead of Christ they worship their own hoods andtheir own filth. But since even they need mercy, they act wickedlyin fabricating works of supererogation, and selling them [theirsuperfluous claim upon heaven] to others. 

We speak the more briefly concerning these subjects, because fromthose things which we have said above concerning justification, concerning repentance, concerning human traditions, it issufficiently evident that monastic vows are not a price on account ofwhich the remission of sins and life eternal are granted. And sinceChrist calls traditions useless services, they are in no wayevangelical perfection. 

But the adversaries cunningly wish to appear as if they modify thecommon opinion concerning perfection. They say that a monastic lifeis not perfection, but that it is a state in which to acquireperfection. It is prettily phrased! We remember that thiscorrection is found in Gerson. For it is apparent that prudent men, offended by these immoderate praises of monastic life, since they didnot venture to remove entirely from it the praise of perfection, haveadded the correction that it is a state in which to acquireperfection. If we follow this, monasticism will be no more a stateof perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic. For these arealso states in which to acquire perfection. For all men, in everyvocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear ofGod in faith, in love towards one's neighbor, and similar spiritualvirtues. 

In the histories of the hermits there are examples of Anthony and ofothers which make the various spheres of life equal. It is writtenthat when Anthony asked God to show him what progress he was makingin this kind of life, a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandriawas indicated to him in a dream to whom he should be compared. Thenext day Anthony came into the city, and went to the shoemaker inorder to ascertain his exercises and gifts, and, having conversedwith the man, heard nothing except that early in the morning heprayed in a few words for the entire state, and then attended to histrade. Here Anthony learned that justification is not to be ascribed tothe kind of life which he had entered [what God had meant by therevelation; for we are justified before God not through this or thatlife, but alone through faith in Christ]. 

But although the adversaries now moderate their praises concerningperfection, yet they actually think otherwise. For they sell merits, and apply them on behalf of others under the pretext that they areobserving precepts and counsels, hence they actually hold that theyhave superfluous merits. But what is it to arrogate to one's selfperfection, if this is not? Again, it has been laid down in the_Confutation_ that the monks endeavor to live more nearly inaccordance with the Gospel. Therefore it ascribes perfection tohuman traditions if they are living more nearly in accordance withthe Gospel by not having property, being unmarried, and obeying therule in clothing, meats, and like trifles. 

Again, the _Confutation_ says that the monks merit eternal life themore abundantly, and quotes Scripture, Matt. 19, 29: Every one thathath forsaken houses, etc. Accordingly, here, too, it claimsperfection also for factitious religious rites. But this passage ofScripture in no way favors monastic life. For Christ does not meanthat to forsake parents, wife, brethren, is a work that must be donebecause it merits the remission of sins and eternal life. Yea, sucha forsaking is cursed. For if any one forsakes parents or wife inorder by this very work to merit the remission of sins or eternallife, this is done with dishonor to Christ. 

There is, moreover, a twofold forsaking. One occurs without a call, without God's command; this Christ does not approve, Matt. 15, 9. Forthe works chosen by us are useless services. But that Christ doesnot approve this flight appears the more clearly from the fact thatHe speaks of forsaking wife and children. We know, however, thatGod's commandment forbids the forsaking of wife and children. Theforsaking which occurs by God's command is of a different kind, namely, when power or tyranny compels us either to depart or to denythe Gospel. Here we have the command that we should rather bearinjury, that we should rather suffer not only wealth, wife, andchildren, but even life, to be taken from us. This forsaking Christapproves, and accordingly He adds: For the Gospel's sake, Mark 10, 29, in order to signify that He is speaking not of those who do injuryto wife and children, but who bear injury on account of theconfession of the Gospel. For the Gospel's sake we ought even toforsake our body. Here it would be ridiculous to hold that it wouldbe a service to God to kill one's self, and without God's command toleave the body. So, too, it is ridiculous to hold that it is a serviceto God without God's command to forsake possessions, friends, wife, children. 

Therefore it is evident that they wickedly distort Christ's word to amonastic life. Unless perhaps the declaration that they "receive ahundredfold in this life" be in place here. For very many becomemonks not on account of the Gospel but on account of sumptuous livingand idleness, who find the most ample riches instead of slenderpatrimonies. But as the entire subject of monasticism is full ofshams, so, by a false pretext they quote testimonies of Scripture, and as a consequence they sin doubly, i. E. , they deceive men, andthat, too, under the pretext of the divine name. 

Another passage is also cited concerning perfection Matt. 19, 21: Ifthou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to thepoor, and come and follow Me. This passage has exercised many, whohave imagined that it is perfection to cast away possessions and thecontrol of property. Let us allow the philosophers to extolAristippus, who cast a great weight of gold into the sea. [Cynicslike Diogenes, who would have no house, but lay in a tub, may commendsuch heathenish holiness. ] Such examples pertain in no way toChristian perfection. [Christian holiness consists in much highermatters than such hypocrisy. ] The division, control and possession ofproperty are civil ordinances, approved by God's Word in thecommandment, Ex. 20, 15: Thou shalt not steal. The abandonment ofproperty has no command or advice in the Scriptures. For evangelicalpoverty does not consist in the abandonment of property, but in notbeing avaricious, in not trusting in wealth, just as David was poorin a most wealthy kingdom. 

Therefore, since the abandonment of property is merely a humantradition, it is a useless service. Excessive also are the praisesin the Extravagant, which says that the abdication of the ownershipof all things for God's sake is meritorious and holy, and a way ofperfection. And it is very dangerous to extol with such excessivepraises a matter conflicting with political order. [Wheninexperienced people hear such commendations, they conclude that itis unchristian to hold property whence many errors and seditionsfollow, through such commendations Muentzer was deceived, and therebymany Anabaptists were led astray. ] But [they say] Christ here speaksof perfection. Yea, they do violence to the text who quote itmutilated. Perfection is in that which Christ adds: Follow Me. Anexample of obedience in one's calling is here presented. And ascallings are unlike [one is called to rulership, a second to befather of a family, a third to be a preacher], so this calling doesnot belong to all, but pertains properly to

that person with whom Christ there speaks, just as the call of Davidto the kingdom, and of Abraham to slay his son, are not to beimitated by us. Callings are personal, just as matters of businessthemselves vary with times and persons; but the example of obedienceis general. Perfection would have belonged to that young man if hehad believed and obeyed this vocation. Thus perfection with us isthat every one with true faith should obey his own calling. [Notthat I should undertake a strange calling for which I have not thecommission or command of God. ]

Thirdly. In monastic vows chastity is promised. We have said above, however, concerning the marriage of priests, that the law of nature[or of God] in men cannot be removed by vows or enactments. And asall do not have the gift of continence, many because of weakness areunsuccessfully continent. Neither, indeed, can any vows or anyenactments abolish the command of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7, 2: Toavoid fornication, let every man have his own wife. Therefore thisvow is not lawful in those who do not have the gift of continence, but who are polluted on account of weakness. Concerning this entiretopic enough has been said above, in regard to which indeed it isstrange, since the dangers and scandals are occurring before men'seyes that the adversaries still defend their traditions contrary tothe manifest command of God. Neither does the voice of Christ movethem, who chides the Pharisees, Matt. 23, 13 f. , who had madetraditions contrary to God's command. 

Fourthly. Those who live in monasteries are released from their vowsby such godless ceremonies as of the Mass applied on behalf of thedead for the sake of gain, the worship of saints, in which the faultis twofold, both that the saints are put in Christ's place, and thatthey are wickedly worshiped, just as the Dominicasters invented therosary of the Blessed Virgin, which is mere babbling not less foolishthan it is wicked, and nourishes the most vain presumption. Then, too, these very impieties are applied only for the sake of gain. Likewise, they neither hear nor teach the Gospel concerning the freeremission of sins for Christ's sake, concerning the righteousness offaith, concerning true repentance, concerning works which have God'scommand. But they are occupied either in philosophic discussions orin the handing down of ceremonies that obscure Christ. 

We will not here speak of the entire service of ceremonies, of thelessons, singing, and similar things, which could be tolerated ifthey [were regulated as regards number, and if they] would beregarded as exercises, after the manner of lessons in the schools[and preaching], whose design is to teach the hearers, and, whileteaching, to move some to fear or faith. 

But now they feign that these ceremonies are services of God, whichmerit the remission of sins for themselves and for others. For onthis account they increase these ceremonies. But if they wouldundertake them in order to teach and exhort the hearers, brief andpointed lessons would be of more profit than these infinite babblings. Thus the entire monastic life is full of hypocrisy and falseopinions [against the First and Second Commandments, against Christ]. To all these this danger also is added, that those who are in thesefraternities are compelled to assent to those persecuting the truth. There are, therefore, many important and forcible reasons which freegood men from the obligation to this kind of life. 

Lastly, the canons themselves release many who either withoutjudgment [before they have attained a proper age] have made vows whenenticed by the tricks of the monks, or have made vows undercompulsion by friends. Such vows not even the canons declare to bevows. From all these considerations it is apparent that there arevery many reasons which teach that monastic vows such as havehitherto been made are not vows; and for this reason a sphere of lifefull of hypocrisy and false opinions can be safely abandoned. 

Here they present an objection derived from the Law concerning theNazarites, Num. 6, 2f. But the Nazarites did not take uponthemselves their vows with the opinions which, we have hitherto saidwe censure in the vows of the monks. The rite of the Nazarites wasan exercise [a bodily exercise with fasting and certain kinds offood] or declaration of faith before men, and did not merit theremission of sins before God, did not justify before God. [For theysought this elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the blessed Seed. ]Again, just as circumcision or the slaying of victims would not be aservice of God now, so the rite of the Nazarites ought not to bepresented now as a service, but it ought to be judged simply as anadiaphoron. It is not right to compare monasticism, devised withoutGod's Word, as a service which should merit the remission of sins andjustification, with the rite of the Nazarites, which had God's Word, and was not taught for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins, but to be an outward exercise, just as other ceremonies of the Law. The same can be said concerning other ceremonies prescribed in theLaw. 

The Rechabites also are cited, who did not have any possessions, anddid not drink wine, as Jeremiah writes, chap. 35, 6f. Yea, truly, the example of the Rechabites accords beautifully with our monks, whose monasteries excel the palaces of kings, and who live mostsumptuously! And the Rechabites, in their poverty of all things, were nevertheless married. Our monks, although abounding in allvoluptuousness, profess celibacy. 

Besides, examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i. E. , according to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contraryto the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures. It is very certain, however, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins orjustification. Therefore, when the Rechabites are praised, it isnecessary [it is certain] that these have observed their custom, notbecause they believed that by this they merited remission of sins, orthat the work was itself a justifying service, or one on account ofwhich they obtained eternal life, instead of, by God's mercy, for thesake of the promised Seed. But because they had the command of theirparents, their obedience is praised, concerning which there is thecommandment of God: Honor thy father and mother. 

Then, too, the custom had a particular purpose: Because they wereforeigners, not Israelites, it is apparent that their father wishedto distinguish them by certain marks from their countrymen, so thatthey might not relapse into the impiety of their countrymen. Hewished by these marks to admonish them of the [fear of God, the]doctrine of faith and immortality. Such an end is lawful. But formonasticism far different ends are taught. They feign that the worksof monasticism are a service, they feign that they merit theremission of sins and justification. The example of the Rechabitesis therefore unlike monasticism; to omit here other evils whichinhere in monasticism at present. 

They cite also from 1 Tim. 5, 11ff. Concerning widows, who, as theyserved the Church, were supported at the public expense, where it issaid: They will marry, having damnation, because they have cast offtheir first faith. First, let us suppose that the Apostle is herespeaking of vows [which, however, he is not doing]; still thispassage will not favor monastic vows, which are made concerninggodless services, and in this opinion that they merit the remissionof sins and justification. For Paul with ringing voice condemns allservices, all laws, all works, if they are observed in order to meritthe remission of sins, or that, on account of them instead of throughmercy on account of Christ we obtain remission of sins. On thisaccount the vows of widows, if there were any, must have been unlikemonastic vows. 

Besides, if the adversaries do not cease to misapply the passage tovows, the prohibition that no widow be selected who is less thansixty years, 1 Tim. 5, 9, must be misapplied in the same way. Thusvows made before this age will be of no account. But the Church didnot yet know these vows. Therefore Paul condemns widows, not becausethey marry, for he commands the younger to marry; but because, whensupported at the public expense, they became wanton, and thus castoff faith. He calls this first faith, clearly not in a monastic vow, but in Christianity [of their Baptism, their Christian duty, theirChristianity]. And in this sense he understands faith in the samechapter, v. 8: If any one provide not for his own, and specially forthose of his own house, he hath denied the faith. For he speaksotherwise of faith than the sophists. He does not ascribe faith tothose who have mortal sin. He, accordingly, says that those cast offfaith who do not care for their relatives. And in the same way hesays that wanton women cast off faith. 

We have recounted some of our reasons and, in passing, have explainedaway the objections urged by the adversaries. And we have collectedthese matters, not only on account of the adversaries, but much moreon account of godly minds, that they may have in view the reasons whythey ought to disapprove of hypocrisy and fictitious monasticservices, all of which indeed this one saying of Christ annuls, whichreads, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me, teaching fordoctrines the commandments of men. Therefore the vows themselves andthe observances of meats, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals, girdles are useless services in God's sight. And all godly mindsshould certainly know that the opinion is simply pharisaic andcondemned that these observances merit the remission of sins; that onaccount of them we are accounted righteous, that on account of them, and not through mercy on account of Christ, we obtain eternal life. And the holy men who have lived in these kinds of life mustnecessarily have learned, confidence in such observance having beenrejected, that they had the remission of sins freely, that forChrist's sake through mercy they would obtain eternal life, and notfor the sake of these services [therefore godly persons who weresaved and continued to live in monastic life had finally come to this, namely, that they despaired of their monastic life, despised alltheir works as dung, condemned all their hypocritical service of God, and held fast to the promise of grace in Christ, as in the example ofSt. Bernard, saying, _Perdite vixi_, I have lived in a sinful way], because God only approves services instituted by His Word, whichservices avail when used in faith. 

Part 36

Article XXVIII (XIV): _Of Ecclesiastical Power. _

Here the adversaries cry out violently concerning the privileges andimmunities of the ecclesiastical estate, and they add the peroration:All things are vain which are presented in the present articleagainst the immunity of the churches and priests. This is merecalumny; for in this article we have disputed concerning other things. Besides, we have frequently testified that we do not find faultwith political ordinances, and the gifts and privileges granted byprinces. 

But would that the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, thecomplaints of the churches and of godly minds! The adversariescourageously guard their own dignities and wealth; meanwhile, theyneglect the condition of the churches; they do not care that thechurches are rightly taught, and that the Sacraments are dulyadministered. To the priesthood they admit all kinds of personsindiscriminately. [They ordain rude asses; thus the Christiandoctrine perished, because the Church was not supplied with efficientpreachers. ] Afterwards they impose intolerable burdens, as thoughthey were delighted with the destruction of their fellowmen, theydemand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than theGospel. Now, in the most important and difficult controversies, concerning which the people urgently desire to be taught, in orderthat they may have something certain which they may follow, they donot release the minds which are most severely tortured with doubt, they only call to arms. Besides, in manifest matters [againstmanifest truth] they present decrees written in blood, which threatenhorrible punishments to men unless they act clearly contrary to God'scommand. Here, on the other hand, you ought to see the tears of thepoor, and hear the pitiable complaints of many good men, which Godundoubtedly considers and regards, to whom one day you will render anaccount of your stewardship. 

But although in the Confession we have in this article embracedvarious topics, the adversaries make no reply [act in true popishfashion], except that the bishops have the power of rule and coercivecorrection, in order to direct their subjects to the goal of eternalblessedness; and that the power of ruling requires the power to judge, to define, to distinguish and fix those things which are serviceableor conduce to the aforementioned end. These are the words of the_Confutation_, in which the adversaries teach us [but do not prove]that the bishops have the authority to frame laws [without theauthority of the Gospel] useful for obtaining eternal life. Thecontroversy is concerning this article. 

[Regarding this matter we submit the following:] But we must retainin the Church this doctrine, namely, that we receive the remission ofsins freely for Christ's sake, by faith. We must also retain thisdoctrine, namely, that human traditions are useless services, andtherefore neither sin nor righteousness should be placed in meatdrink, clothing and like things, the use of which Christ wished to beleft free, since He says, Matt. 15, 11: Not that which goeth into themouth defileth the man; and Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God isnot meat and drink. Therefore the bishops have no right to frametraditions in addition to the Gospel, that they may merit theremission of sins, that they may be services which God is to approveas righteousness and which burden consciences, as though it were asin to omit them. All this is taught by that one passage in Acts, 15, 9ff. , where the apostles say [Peter says] that hearts are purifiedby faith. And then they prohibit the imposing of a yoke, and showhow great a danger this is, and enlarge upon the sin of those whoburden the Church. Why tempt ye God they say. By this thunderboltour adversaries are in no way terrified, who defend by violencetraditions and godless opinions. 

For above they have also condemned Article XV, in which we havestated that traditions do not merit the remission of sins, and theyhere say that traditions conduce to eternal life. Do they merit theremission of sins? Are they services which God approves asrighteousness? Do they quicken hearts! Paul to the Colossians, 2, 20ff. , says that traditions do not profit with respect to eternalrighteousness and eternal life; for the reason that food, drink, clothing and the like are things that perish with the using. Buteternal life [which begins in this life inwardly by faith] is wroughtin the heart by eternal things, i. E. , by the Word of God and the HolyGhost. Therefore let the adversaries explain how traditions conduceto eternal life. 

Since, however, the Gospel clearly testifies that traditions oughtnot to be imposed upon the Church in order to merit the remission ofsins; in order to be services which God shall approve asrighteousness; in order to burden consciences, so that to omit themis to be accounted a sin, the adversaries will never be able to showthat the bishops have the power to institute such services. 

Besides, we have declared in the Confession what power the Gospelascribes to bishops. Those who are now bishops do not perform theduties of bishops according to the Gospel although, indeed, they maybe bishops according to canonical polity, which we do not censure. But we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel. And we arepleased with the ancient division of power into power of the orderand power of jurisdiction [that is the administration of theSacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction]. Thereforethe bishop has the power of the order, i. E. , the ministry of the Wordand Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i. E. , theauthority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again toabsolve them if they are converted and seek absolution. But theirpower is not to be tyrannical, i. E. , without a fixed law; nor regal, i. E. , above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word ofGod, according to which they ought to teach and according to whichthey ought to exercise their jurisdiction. Therefore, even thoughthey should have some jurisdiction, it does not follow that they areable to institute new services. For services pertain in no way tojurisdiction. And they have the Word, they have the command, how farthey ought to exercise jurisdiction, namely, if any one would doanything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ. [For the Gospel does not set up a rule independently of the Gospel;that is quite clear and certain. ]

Although in the Confession we also have added how far it is lawfulfor them to frame traditions, namely, not as necessary services, butso that there may be order in the Church, for the sake oftranquillity. And these traditions ought not to cast snares uponconsciences, as though to enjoin necessary services; as Paul teacheswhen he says, Gal. 5, 1: Stand fast, therefore, in the libertywherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again withthe yoke of bondage. The use of such ordinances ought therefore tobe left free, provided that offenses be avoided, and that they be notjudged to be necessary services; just as the apostles themselvesordained [for the sake of good discipline] very many things whichhave been changed with time. Neither did they hand them down in sucha way that it would not be permitted to change them. For they didnot dissent from their own writings, in which they greatly labor lestthe Church be burdened with the opinion that human rites arenecessary services. 

This is the simple mode of interpreting traditions, namely, that weunderstand them not as necessary services, and nevertheless, for thesake of avoiding offenses, we should observe them in the proper place. And thus many learned and great men in the Church have held. Nordo we see what can be said against this. For it is certain that theexpression Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me, does notspeak of traditions, but is chiefly directed against traditions. Forit is not a _mandatum cum libera_ ( a bestowal of unlimitedauthority), as they call it, but it is a _cautio de rato_ (a cautionconcerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the specialcommand [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order, namely, not to preach their own word, but God's Word and the Gospel], i. E. , the testimony given to the apostles that we believe them withrespect to the word of another, not their own. For Christ wishes toassure us, as was necessary, that we should know that the Worddelivered by men is efficacious, and that no other word from heavenought to be sought. He that heareth you heareth Me, cannot beunderstood of traditions. For Christ requires that they teach insuch a way that [by their mouth] He Himself be heard, because He says:He heareth Me. Therefore He wishes His own voice, His own Word, tobe heard, not human traditions. Thus a saying which is mostespecially in our favor, and contains the most important consolationand doctrine, these stupid men pervert to the most trifling matters, the distinctions of food, vestments, and the like. 

They quote also Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you. This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. For it does notestablish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neithershould the bishops frame traditions contrary to the Gospel, orinterpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. And when they dothis, obedience is prohibited, according to Gal. 1, 9: If any manpreach any other gospel, let him be accursed. 

We make the same reply to Matt. 23, 3: Whatsoever they bid youobserve, that observe, because evidently a universal command is notgiven that we should receive all things [even contrary to God'scommand and Word], since Scripture elsewhere, Acts 5, 29, bids usobey God rather than men. When, therefore they teach wicked things, they are not to be heard. But these are wicked things, namely, thathuman traditions are services of God that they are necessary services, that they merit the remission of sins and eternal life. 

They present, as an objection, the public offenses and commotionswhich have arisen under pretext of our doctrine. To these we brieflyreply. If all the scandals be brought together, still the onearticle concerning the remission of sins, that for Christ's sakethrough faith we freely obtain the remission of sins, brings so muchgood as to hide all evils. And this, in the beginning, gained forLuther not only our favor, but also, that of many who are nowcontending against us. "For former favor ceases, and mortals areforgetful, " says Pindar. Nevertheless, we neither desire to deserttruth that is necessary to the Church, nor can we assent to theadversaries in condemning it. For we ought to obey God rather thanmen. Those who in the beginning condemned manifest truth, and arenow persecuting it with the greatest cruelty, will give an accountfor the schism that has been occasioned. Then, too, are there noscandals among the adversaries? How much evil is there in thesacrilegious profanation of the Mass applied to gain! How greatdisgrace in celibacy! But let us omit a comparison. This is what wehare replied to the _Confutation_ for the time being. Now we leaveit to the judgment of all the godly whether the adversaries are rightin boasting that they have actually refuted our Concession from theScriptures. 

Part 37

_THE END. _

[As regards the slander and complaint of the adversaries at the endof the _Confutation_, namely, that this doctrine is causingdisobedience and other scandals, this is unjustly imputed to ourdoctrine. For it is evident that by this doctrine the authority ofmagistrates is most highly praised. Moreover, it is well known thatin those localities where this doctrine is preached, the magistrateshave hitherto by the grace of God, been treated with all respect bythe subjects. 

But as to the want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is wellknown how these matters first happened, and who have caused thedivision, namely, the sellers of indulgences, who shamelesslypreached intolerable lies, and afterwards condemned Luther for notapproving of those lies, and besides, they again and again excitedmore controversies, so that Luther was induced to attack many othererrors. But since our opponents would not tolerate the truth, anddared to promote manifest errors by force, it is easy to judge who isguilty of the schism. Surely, all the world, all wisdom, all powerought to yield to Christ and His holy Word. But the devil is theenemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against Christ, toextinguish and suppress the Word of God. Therefore the devil withhis members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause ofthe schism and want of unity. For we have most zealously soughtpeace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are notforced to blaspheme and deny Christ. For God, the discerner of allmen's hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joyin this awful disunion. On the other hand, our adversaries have sofar not been willing to conclude peace without stipulating that wemust abandon the saving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christwithout our merit; though Christ would be most foully blasphemedthereby. 

And although, as is the custom of the world it cannot be but thatoffenses have occurred in this schism through malice and by imprudentpeople; for the devil causes such offenses, to disgrace the Gospel, yet all this is of no account in view of the great comfort which thisteaching has brought men, that for Christ's sake, without our merit, we have forgiveness of sins and a gracious God. Again, that men havebeen instructed that forsaking secular estates and magistracies isnot a divine worship, but that such estates and magistracies arepleasing to God and to be engaged in them is a real holy work anddivine service. 

If we also were to narrate the offenses of the adversaries, which, indeed, we have no desire to do, it would be a terrible list: what anabominable, blasphemous fair the adversaries have made of the Mass;what unchaste living has been instituted by their celibacy; how thePopes have for more than 400 years been engaged in wars against theemperors, have forgotten the Gospel, and only sought to be emperorsthemselves, and to bring all Italy into their power how they havejuggled the possessions of the Church; how through their neglect manyfalse teachings and forms of worship have been set up by the monks. Is not their worship of the saints manifest pagan idolatry? Alltheir writers do not say one word concerning faith in Christ, bywhich forgiveness of sin is obtained; the highest degree of holinessthey ascribe to human traditions, it is chiefly of these that theywrite and preach. Moreover this, too, ought to be numbered withtheir offenses, that they clearly reveal what sort of a spirit is inthem, because they are now putting to death so many innocent, piouspeople on account of Christian doctrine. But we do not now wish tosay more concerning this; for these matters should be decided inaccordance with God's Word, regardless of the offenses on either aide. 

We hope that all God-fearing men will sufficiently see from thiswriting of ours that ours is the Christian doctrine and comfortingand salutary to all godly men. Accordingly, we pray God to extendHis grace to the end that His holy Gospel may be known and honored byall, for His glory, and for the peace, unity, and salvation of all ofus. Regarding all these articles we offer to make further statementsif required. ]