{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_6744/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_6744","id":"gutenberg_6744","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6744","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Lutheran Church -- Catechisms"],"text":"Produced for Project Gutenberg by Michael Pullen and David Klinge.\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Apology of the Augsburg Confession\n\nby Philip Melanchthon\n\nTranslated by F. Bente and  W. H. T. Dau\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nThis text was converted to ASCII format for Project Wittenberg by\nAllen Mulvey. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:\nRev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at\nConcordia Theological Seminary.\n\nE-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu\n\nSurface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft.  Wayne, IN 46825 USA\nPhone: (260) 452-3149                     Fax: (260) 452-2126\n________________________________________________________________\n\n\nThe Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)\n\nTable of Contents\n\nPhilip Melanchthon's Introduction to the Apology\nPart One: On Articles I-II of the Augustana\nPart Two: On Articles III-IV of the Augustana\nPart Three: What is Justifying Faith?\nPart Four: That Faith in Christ Justifies\nPart Five: That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ\nPart Six: On Article III: Love and the Fulfilling of the Law\nPart Seven: Reply to the Arguments of the Adversaries\nPart Eight: Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...\nPart Nine: Second Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...\nPart Ten: Third Continuation of: Reply to the Arguments...\nPart Eleven: Articles Seven and Eight of the Augustana\nPart Twelve: Article Nine of the Augustana\nPart Thirteen: Article Ten of the Augustana\nPart Fourteen: Article Eleven of the Augustana\nPart Fifteen: Article Twelve of the Augustana\nPart Sixteen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 1)\nPart Seventeen: Article Six of the Augustana (Pt. 2)\nPart Eighteen: Article Seven of the Augustana\nPart Nineteen: Article Fourteen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty: Article Fifteen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-One: Article Sixteen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Two: Article Seventeen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Three: Article Eighteen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Four: Article Nineteen of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Five: Article Twenty of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Six: Article Twenty-One of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Seven: Article Twenty-Two of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Eight: Article Twenty-Three of the Augustana\nPart Twenty-Nine: Article Twenty-Four of the Augustana\nPart Thirty: A Definition of the term \"Sacrifice\"\nPart Thirty-One: What the Fathers Thought About Sacrifice\nPart Thirty-Two: Of the Use of the Sacrament and Sacrifice\nPart Thirty-Three: Of the Term \"Mass\"\nPart Thirty-Four:Of the Mass for the Dead\nPart Thirty-Five: Of Monastic Vows\nPart Thirty-Six: Of Ecclesiatical Power\nPart Thirty-Seven: End\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nTHE APOLOGY OF THE CONFESSION.\n\nPhilip Melanchthon Presents His Greeting to the Reader.  Wherefore we\nbelieve that troubles and dangers for the glory of Christ and the\ngood of the Church should be endured, and we are confident that this\nour fidelity to duty is approved of God, and we hope that the\njudgment of posterity concerning us will be more just.\n\nFor it is undeniable that many topics of Christian doctrine whose\nexistence in the Church is of the greatest moment have been brought\nto view by our theologians and explained; in reference to which we\nare not disposed here to recount under what sort of opinions, and how\ndangerous, they formerly lay covered in the writings of the monks,\ncanonists, and sophistical theologians.  [This may have to be done\nlater.]\n\nWe have the public testimonials of many good men, who give God thanks\nfor this greatest blessing, namely, that concerning many necessary\ntopics it has taught better things than are read everywhere in the\nbooks of our adversaries.\n\nWe shall commend our cause, therefore, to Christ, who some time will\njudge these controversies, and we beseech Him to look upon the\nafflicted and scattered churches, and to bring them back to godly and\nperpetual concord.  [Therefore, if the known and clear truth is\ntrodden under foot, we will resign this cause to God and Christ in\nheaven, who is the Father of orphans and the Judge of widows and of\nall the forsaken, who (as we certainly know) will judge and pass\nsentence upon this cause aright.  Lord Jesus Christ, it is Thy holy\nGospel, it is Thy cause; look Thou upon the many troubled hearts and\nconsciences, and maintain and strengthen in Thy truth Thy churches\nand little flocks, who suffer anxiety and distress from the devil.\nConfound all hypocrisy and lies, and grant peace and unity, so that\nThy glory may advance, and Thy kingdom, strong against all the gates\nof hell, may continually grow and increase.]\n\n\n\n\nPart 1\n\n\nArticle I: _Of God._\n\nThe First Article of our Confession our adversaries approve, in which\nwe declare that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence,\nundivided, etc., and yet, that there are three distinct persons, of\nthe same divine essence, and coeternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\nThis article we have always taught and defended, and we believe that\nit has, in Holy Scripture, sure and firm testimonies that cannot be\noverthrown.  And we constantly affirm that those thinking otherwise\nare outside of the Church of Christ, and are idolaters, and insult\nGod.\n\n\nArticle II (I): _Of Original Sin._\n\nThe Second Article, Of Original Sin, the adversaries approve, but in\nsuch a way that they, nevertheless, censure the definition of\noriginal sin, which we incidentally gave.  Here, immediately at the\nvery threshold, His Imperial Majesty will discover that the writers\nof the _Confutation_ were deficient not only in judgment, but also in\ncandor.  For whereas we, with a simple mind, desired, in passing, to\nrecount those things which original sin embraces, these men, by\nframing an invidious interpretation, artfully distort a proposition\nthat has in it nothing which of itself is wrong.  Thus they say: \"To\nbe without the fear of God, to be without faith, is actual guilt\";\nand therefore they deny that it is original guilt.\n\nIt is quite evident that such subtilties have originated in the\nschools, not in the council of the Emperor.  But although this\nsophistry can be very easily refuted; yet, in order that all good men\nmay understand that we teach in this matter nothing that is absurd,\nwe ask first of all that the German Confession be examined.  This\nwill free us from the suspicion of novelty.  For there it is written:\n_Weiter wird gelehrt, dass nach dem Fall Adams alle Menschen, so\nnatuerlich geboren werden, in Suenden empfangen und geboren werdenen,\ndas ist, dass sie alle von Mutterleibe an voll boeser Lueste und\nNeigung sind, keine wahre Gottesfurcht, keinen wahren Glauben an Gott\nvon Natur haben koennen._ [It is further taught that since the Fall\nof Adam all men who are naturally born are conceived and born in sin,\ni.e., that they all, from their mother's womb, are full of evil\ndesire and inclination, and can have by nature no true fear of God,\nno true faith in God.] This passage testifies that we deny to those\npropagated according to carnal nature not only the acts, but also the\npower or gifts of producing fear and trust in God.  For we say that\nthose thus born have concupiscence, and cannot produce true fear and\ntrust in God.  What is there here with which fault can be found?  To\ngood men, we think, indeed, that we have exculpated ourselves\nsufficiently.  For in this sense the Latin description denies to\nnature [even to innocent infants] the power, i.e., it denies the\ngifts and energy by which to produce fear and trust in God, and, in\nadults [over and above this innate evil disposition of the heart,\nalso] the acts, so that, when we mention concupiscence, we understand\nnot only the acts or fruits, but the constant inclination of the\nnature [the evil inclination within, which does not cease as long as\nwe are not born anew through the Spirit and faith].\n\nBut hereafter we will show more fully that our description agrees\nwith the usual and ancient definition.  For we must first show our\ndesign in preferring to employ these words in this place.  In their\nschools the adversaries confess that \"the material,\" as they call it,\n\"of original sin is concupiscence.\" Wherefore, in framing the\ndefinition, this should not have been passed by, especially at this\ntime, when some are philosophizing concerning it in a manner\nunbecoming teachers of religion [are speaking concerning this innate,\nwicked desire more after the manner of heathen from philosophy than\naccording to God's Word, or Holy Scripture].\n\nFor some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption\nin the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality\n[not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or\nburden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt\nof another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their\nown.  Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on\naccount of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman\nare slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but\nbecause of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they\nare born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an\ninnate evil but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we\nare not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace].\nTo show that this impious opinion is displeasing to us, we made\nmention of \"concupiscence,\" and, with the best intention, have termed\nand explained it as \"diseases,\" that \"the nature of men is born\ncorrupt and full of faults\" [not a part of man, but the entire person\nwith its entire nature is born in sin as with a hereditary disease].\n\nNor, indeed, have we only made use of the term concupiscence, but we\nhave also said that \"the fear of God and faith are wanting.\" This we\nhave added with the following design: The scholastic teachers also,\nnot sufficiently understanding the definition of original sin, which\nthey have received from the Fathers, extenuate the sin of origin.\nThey contend concerning the fomes [or evil inclination] that it is a\nquality of [blemish in the] body, and, with their usual folly, ask\nwhether this quality be derived from the contagion of the apple or\nfrom the breath of the serpent, and whether it be increased by\nremedies.  With such questions they have suppressed the main point.\nTherefore, when they speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention\nthe more serious faults of human nature, to wit, ignorance of God,\ncontempt for God, being destitute of fear and confidence in God,\nhatred of God's judgment, flight from God [as from a tyrant] when He\njudges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust in\npresent things [money, property, friends], etc. These diseases, which\nare in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics\ndo not notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired\nstrength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God's\ncommandments according to the substance of the acts; nor do they see\nthat they are saying things that are contradictory to one another.\nFor what else is the being able in one's own strength to love God\nabove all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to have\noriginal righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely\npure and holy]?  But if human nature have such strength as to be able\nof itself to love God above all things, as the scholastics\nconfidently affirm, what will original sin be?  For what will there\nbe need of the grace of Christ if we can be justified by our own\nrighteousness [powers]?  For what will there be need of the Holy\nGhost if human strength can by itself love God above all things, and\nfulfil God's commandments?  Who does not see what preposterous\nthoughts our adversaries entertain?  The lighter diseases in the\nnature of man they acknowledge, the more severe they do not\nacknowledge; and yet of these, Scripture everywhere admonishes us,\nand the prophets constantly complain [as the 13th Psalm, and some\nother psalms say Ps. 14, 1-3; 5, 9; 140, 3; 36, 1], namely, of carnal\nsecurity, of the contempt of God, of hatred toward God, and of\nsimilar faults born with us.  [For Scripture clearly says that all\nthese things are not blown at us, but born with us.] But after the\nscholastics mingled with Christian doctrine philosophy concerning the\nperfection of nature [light of reason], and ascribed to the free will\nand the acts springing therefrom more than was sufficient, and taught\nthat men are justified before God by philosophic or civil\nrighteousness (which we also confess to be subject to reason, and in\na measure, within our power), they could not see the inner\nuncleanness of the nature of men.  For this cannot be judged except\nfrom the Word of God, of which the scholastics, in their discussions,\ndo not frequently treat.\n\nThese were the reasons why, in the description of original sin, we\nmade mention of concupiscence also, and denied to man's natural\nstrength the fear of God and trust in Him.  For we wished to indicate\nthat original sin contains also these diseases, namely, ignorance of\nGod, contempt for God, the being destitute of the fear of God and\ntrust in Him, inability to love God.  These are the chief faults of\nhuman nature, conflicting especially with the first table of the\nDecalog.\n\nNeither have we said anything new.  The ancient definition understood\naright expresses precisely the same thing when it says: \"Original sin\nis the absence of original righteousness\" [a lack of the first purity\nand righteousness in Paradise].  But what is righteousness?  Here the\nscholastics wrangle about dialectic questions, they do not explain\nwhat original righteousness is.  Now, in the Scriptures,\nrighteousness comprises not only the second table of the Decalog\n[regarding good works in serving our fellow-man], but the first also,\nwhich teaches concerning the fear of God, concerning faith,\nconcerning the love of God.  Therefore original righteousness was to\nembrace not only an even temperament of the bodily qualities [perfect\nhealth and, in all respects, pure blood, unimpaired powers of the\nbody, as they contend], but also these gifts, namely, a quite certain\nknowledge of God, fear of God, confidence in God, or certainly the\nrectitude and power to yield these affections [but the greatest\nfeature in that noble first creature was a bright light in the heart\nto know God and His work, etc.].  And Scripture testifies to this,\nwhen it says, Gen. 1, 27, that man was fashioned in the image and\nlikeness of God.  What else is this than that there were embodied in\nman such wisdom and righteousness as apprehended God, and in which\nGod was reflected, i.e., to man there were given the gifts of the\nknowledge of God, the fear of God, confidence in God, and the like?\nFor thus Irenaeus and Ambrose interpret the likeness to God, the\nlatter of whom not only says many things to this effect, but\nespecially declares: That soul is not, therefore, in the image of God,\nin which God is not at all times.  And Paul shows in the Epistles to\nthe Ephesians, 5, 9, and Colossians, 3,10, that the image of God is\nthe knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.  Nor does Longobard\nfear to say that original righteousness is the very likeness to God\nwhich God implanted in man.  We recount the opinions of the ancients,\nwhich in no way interfere with Augustine's interpretation of the\nimage.\n\nTherefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lack\nof righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man's\nlower powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and its\nmeanest and lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God,\nconfidence in God, the fear and love of God, or certainly the power\nto produce these affections [the light in the heart which creates a\nlove and desire for these matters].  For even the theologians\nthemselves teach in their schools that these are not produced without\ncertain gifts and the aid of grace.  In order that the matter may be\nunderstood, we term these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fear\nand confidence in God.  From these facts it appears that the ancient\ndefinition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear\nand confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the\ngifts and power to produce these acts [that we have no good heart\ntoward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do\nor achieve any perfectly good work].\n\nOf the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of\nAugustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence\n[wicked desire].  For he means that when righteousness had been lost,\nconcupiscence came in its place.  For inasmuch as diseased nature\ncannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal\nthings.  God's judgment it either contemns when at ease, or hates,\nwhen thoroughly terrified.  Thus Augustine includes both the defect\nand the vicious habit which has come in its place.  Nor indeed is\nconcupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but\nalso, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things.  Nor\ndo those persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same\ntime concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost,\nand love to God above all things.\n\nWe, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of\noriginal sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able to\nbelieve God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise:\nthe having concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God's\nWord, i.e., seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal\nwisdom and righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as god\nthings.  Nor only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also\nthe more recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones\namong them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly these\nnamely, the defects which I have recounted and concupiscence.  For\nThomas says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of original\nrighteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the parts\nof the soul; whence it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit\n[something positive].  And Bonaventura: When the question is asked,\nWhat is original sin?  The correct answer is, that it is immoderate\n[unchecked] concupiscence.  The correct answer is also, that it is\nwant of the righteousness that is due.  And in one of these replies\nthe other is included.  The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he says\nthat original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the\nflesh.  For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring with\nus ignorance of God unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God.\nFor when he mentions ignorance, he includes these.  And these\nopinions [even of the most recent teachers] also agree with Scripture.\nFor Paul sometimes expressly calls it a defect [a lack of divine\nlight], as 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man receiveth not the things of\nthe Spirit of God.  In another place, Rom. 7, 5, he calls it\nconcupiscence working in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.\nWe could cite more passages relating to both parts, but in regard to\na manifest fact there is no need of testimonies.  And the intelligent\nreader will readily be able to decide that to be without the fear of\nGod and without faith are more than actual guilt.  For they are\nabiding defects in our unrenewed nature.\n\nIn reference to original sin we therefore hold nothing differing\neither from Scripture or from the Church catholic, but cleanse from\ncorruptions and restore to light most important declarations of\nScripture and of the Fathers, that had been covered over by the\nsophistical controversies of modern theologians.  For it is manifest\nfrom the subject itself that modern theologians have not noticed what\nthe Fathers meant when they spake of defect [lack of original\nrighteousness].  But the knowledge of original sin is necessary.  For\nthe magnitude of the grace of Christ cannot be understood [no one can\nheartily long and have a desire for Christ for the inexpressibly\ngreat treasure of divine favor and grace which the Gospel offers],\nunless our diseases be recognized.  [As Christ says Matt. 9, 12; Mark\n2, 17: They that are whole need not a physician.] The entire\nrighteousness of man is mere hypocrisy [and abomination] before God,\nunless we acknowledge that our heart is naturally destitute of love,\nfear, and confidence in God [that we are miserable sinners who are in\ndisgrace with God].  For this reason the prophet Jeremiah, 31, 19,\nsays: After that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh.  Likewise\nPs. 116, 11: I said in my haste, All men are liars, i.e., not\nthinking aright concerning God.\n\nHere our adversaries inveigh against Luther also because he wrote\nthat, \"Original sin remains after Baptism.\" They add that this\narticle was justly condemned by Leo X. But His Imperial Majesty will\nfind on this point a manifest slander.  For our adversaries know in\nwhat sense Luther intended this remark that original sin remains\nafter Baptism.  He always wrote thus, namely, that Baptism removes\nthe guilt of original sin, although the material, as they call it, of\nthe sin, i.e., concupiscence, remains.  He also added in reference to\nthe material that the Holy Ghost, given through Baptism, begins to\nmortify the concupiscence, and creates new movements [a new light, a\nnew sense and spirit] in man.  In the same manner, Augustine also\nspeaks who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner\nthat it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed.  Here he\nconfesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains although it\nis not imputed.  And this judgment was so agreeable to those who\nsucceeded him that it was recited also in the decrees.  Also against\nJulian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has been\nannulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh.\nIt has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the\nSacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because\nit produces desires against which believers contend.  Our adversaries\nknow that Luther believes and teaches thus, and while they cannot\nreject the matter, they nevertheless pervert his words, in order by\nthis artifice to crush an innocent man.\n\nBut they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a\nburden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to\ndeath and condemnation].  Luther maintains that it is a sin.  It has\nbeen said above that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence.\nIf there be anything disadvantageous in this opinion, let them\nquarrel with Augustine.  Besides Paul says, Rom. 7, 7. 23: I had not\nknown lust (concupiscence), except the Law had said, Thou shalt not\ncovet.  Likewise: I see another law in my members, warring against\nthe law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin\nwhich is in my members.  These testimonies can be overthrown by no\nsophistry.  [All devils, all men cannot overthrow them.] For they\nclearly call concupiscence sin, which, nevertheless, is not imputed\nto those who are in Christ although by nature it is a matter worthy\nof death where it is not forgiven.  Thus, beyond all controversy, the\nFathers believe.  For Augustine, in a long discussion refutes the\nopinion of those who thought that concupiscence in man is not a fault\nbut an adiaphoron, as color of the body or ill health is said to be\nan adiaphoron [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor\nevil].\n\nBut if the adversaries will contend that the fomes [or evil\ninclination] is an adiaphoron, not only many passages of Scripture\nbut simply the entire Church [and all the Fathers] will contradict\nthem.  For [even if not entire consent, but only the inclination and\ndesire be there] who ever dared to say that these matters, even\nthough perfect agreement could not be attained, were adiaphora,\nnamely, to doubt concerning God's wrath,: concerning God's grace,\nconcerning God's Word, to be angry at the judgments of God, to be\nprovoked because God does not at once deliver one from afflictions,\nto murmur because the wicked enjoy a better fortune than the good, to\nbe urged on by wrath, lust, the desire for glory, wealth, etc.?  And\nyet godly men acknowledge these in themselves, as appears in the\nPsalms and the prophets.  [For all tried, Christian hearts know, alas!\nthat these evils are wrapped up in man's skin, namely to esteem\nmoney, goods, and all other matters more highly than God, and to\nspend our lives in security; again, that after the manner of our\ncarnal security we always imagine that God's wrath against sin is not\nas serious and great as it verily is.  Again, that we murmur against\nthe doing and will of God, when He does not succor us speedily in our\ntribulations, and arranges our affairs to please us.  Again, we\nexperience every day that it hurts us to see wicked people in good\nfortune in this world, as David and all the saints have complained.\nOver and above this, all men feel that their hearts are easily\ninflamed, now with ambition, now with anger and wrath, now with\nlewdness.] But in the schools they transferred hither from philosophy\nnotions entirely different, that, because of passions, we are neither\ngood nor evil, we are neither deserving of praise nor blame.\nLikewise, that nothing is sin, unless it be voluntary [inner desires\nand thoughts are not sins, if I do not altogether consent thereto].\nThese notions were expressed among philosophers with respect to civil\nrighteousness, and not with respect to God's judgment.  [For there it\nis true, as the jurists say, L. cogitationis, thoughts are exempt\nfrom custom and punishment.  But God searches the hearts; in God's\ncourt and judgment it is different.] With no greater prudence they\nadd also other notions, such as, that [God's creature and] nature is\nnot [cannot in itself be] evil.  In its proper place we do not\ncensure this; but it is not right to twist it into an extenuation of\noriginal sin.  And, nevertheless, these notions are read in the works\nof scholastics, who inappropriately mingle philosophy or civil\ndoctrine concerning ethics with the Gospel.  Nor were these matters\nonly disputed in the schools, but, as is usually the case, were\ncarried from the schools to the people.  And these persuasions\n[godless, erroneous, dangerous, harmful teachings] prevailed, and\nnourished confidence in human strength, and suppressed the knowledge\nof Christ's grace.  Therefore, Luther wishing to declare the\nmagnitude of original sin and of human infirmity [what a grievous\nmortal guilt original sin is in the sight of God], taught that these\nremnants of original sin [after Baptism] are not, by their own nature,\nadiaphora in man, but that, for their non-imputation, they need the\ngrace of Christ and, likewise for their mortification, the Holy Ghost.\n\nAlthough the scholastics extenuate both sin and punishment when they\nteach that man by his own strength, can fulfil the commandments of\nGod; in Genesis the punishment, imposed on account of original sin,\nis described otherwise.  For there human nature is subjected not only\nto death and other bodily evils, but also to the kingdom of the devil.\nFor there, Gen. 3, 16, this fearful sentence is proclaimed: I will\nput enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her\nseed.  The defects and the concupiscence are punishments and sins.\nDeath and other bodily evils and the dominion of the devil, are\nproperly punishments.  For human nature has been delivered into\nslavery, and is held captive by the devil, who infatuates it with\nwicked opinions and errors, and impels it to sins of every kind.  But\njust as the devil cannot be conquered except by the aid of Christ, so\nby our own strength we cannot free ourselves from this slavery.  Even\nthe history of the world shows how great is the power of the devil's\nkingdom.  The world is full of blasphemies against God and of wicked\nopinions, and the devil keeps entangled in these bands those who are\nwise and righteous [many hypocrites who appear holy] in the sight of\nthe world.  In other persons grosser vices manifest themselves.  But\nsince Christ was given to us to remove both these sins and these\npunishments, and to destroy the kingdom of the devil, sin and death,\nit will not be possible to recognize the benefits of Christ unless we\nunderstand our evils.  For this reason our preachers have diligently\ntaught concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is\nnew but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy\nFathers.\n\nWe think that this will satisfy His Imperial Majesty concerning the\npuerile and trivial sophistry with which the adversaries have\nperverted our article.  For we know that we believe aright and in\nharmony with the Church catholic of Christ.  But if the adversaries\nwill renew this controversy, there will be no want among us of those\nwho will reply and defend the truth.  For in this case our\nadversaries, to a great extent, do not understand what they say.\nThey often speak what is contradictory, and neither explain correctly\nand logically that which is essential to [i.e., that which is or is\nnot properly of the essence of] original sin, nor what they call\ndefects.  But we have been unwilling at this place to examine their\ncontests with any very great subtlety.  We have thought it worth\nwhile only to recite, in customary and well-known words, the belief\nof the holy Fathers, which we also follow.\n\n\n\n\nPART 2\n\n\nArticle III: _Of Christ._\n\nThe Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that\nthere are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed by\nthe Word into the unity of His person; and that the same Christ\nsuffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that He was\nraised again to reign, and to justify and sanctify believers, etc.,\naccording to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.\n\n\nArticle IV (II): _Of Justification._\n\nIn the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, below, in the Twentieth Article,\nthey condemn us, for teaching that men obtain remission of sins, not\nbecause of their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, through\nfaith in Christ.  [They reject quite stubbornly both these statements.\n] For they condemn us both for denying that men obtain remission of\nsins because of their own merits, and for affirming that, through\nfaith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ are\njustified.  But since in this controversy the chief topic of\nChristian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illumines\nand amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for\nthe clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and\nalone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge\nof Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings\nnecessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we ask\nHis Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to matters\nof such importance.  For since the adversaries understand neither\nwhat the remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor what\nrighteousness is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure the\nglory and benefits of Christ and rob devout consciences of the\nconsolations offered in Christ.  But that we may strengthen the\nposition of our Confession, and also remove the charges which the\nadversaries advance against us, certain things are to be premised in\nthe beginning, in order that the sources of both kinds of doctrine, i.\ne., both that of our adversaries and our own, may be known.\n\nAll Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics,\nthe Law and the promises.  For in some places it presents the Law,\nand in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in\nthe Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for\nHis sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or\nwhen, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He\nhas appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life\neternal.  Moreover, in this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten\nCommandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures.  Of the\nceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.\n\nOf these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human\nreason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the\nsame judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees\nwith the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they\nseek the remission of sins and justification.  Now, the Decalog\nrequires not only outward civil works, which reason can in some way\nproduce, but it also requires other things placed far above reason,\nnamely, truly to fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God,\ntruly to be convinced that God hears us, and to expect the aid of God\nin death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience to\nGod, in death and all afflictions, so that we may not flee from these,\nor refuse them when God imposes them.\n\nHere the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a\nrighteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides\nthat without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things.\nFor, as long as the human mind is at ease, and does not feel the\nwrath or judgment of God, it can imagine that it wishes to love God,\nthat it wishes to do good for God's sake.  [But it is sheer hypocrisy.\n] In this manner they teach that men merit the remission of sins by\ndoing what is in them, i.e., if reason, grieving over sin, elicit an\nact of love to God, or for God's sake be active in that which is good.\nAnd because this opinion naturally flatters men, it has brought\nforth and multiplied in the Church many services, monastic vows,\nabuses of the mass; and, with this opinion the one has, in the course\nof time, devised this act of worship and observances, the other that.\nAnd in order that they might nourish and increase confidence in such\nworks, they have affirmed that God necessarily gives grace to one\nthus working, by the necessity not of constraint, but of immutability\n[not that He is constrained, but that this is the order which God\nwill not transgress or alter].\n\nIn this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which it\nwould be tedious to enumerate.  Let the discreet reader think only of\nthis: If this be Christian righteousness, what difference is there\nbetween philosophy and the doctrine of Christ?  If we merit the\nremission of sins by these elicit acts [that spring from our mind],\nof what benefit is Christ?  If we can be justified by reason and the\nworks of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration\n[as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]?  And from these opinions the\nmatter has now come to such a pass that many ridicule us because we\nteach that an other than the philosophic righteousness must be sought\nafter.  [Alas! it has come to this, that even great theologians at\nLouvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other godliness or\nrighteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teaches\notherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach.  And although\nwe ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridicule\nit, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We\nhave heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead\nof a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle.  [I myself have heard\na great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and\npreached the ethics of Aristotle.  Is this not a childish, foolish\nway to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things\nare true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the\nadversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a\nfine new Bible].  For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so\nlearnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded.  We\nsee books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with\nthe sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come\nfor the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we might\nmerit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this\ngratuitously, because of His merits.  Therefore, if we here receive\nthe doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit\nthe remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference\nbetween philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian\nrighteousness.\n\nAlthough the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a\nknowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him that\nit is His merit that a habit is given us, or, as they say, _prima\ngratia_, \"first grace,\" which they understand as a habit, inclining\nus the more readily to love God; yet what they ascribe to this habit\nis of little importance [is a feeble, paltry, small, poor operation,\nthat would be ascribed to Christ], because they imagine that the acts\nof the will are of the same kind before and after this habit.  They\nimagine that the will can love God; but nevertheless this habit\nstimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully.  And they bid us\nfirst merit this habit by preceding merits; then they bid us merit by\nthe works of the Law an increase of this habit and life eternal.\nThus they bury Christ, so that men may not avail themselves of Him as\na Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receive\nremission of sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their own\nfulfilment of the Law they merit the remission of sins, and that by\ntheir own fulfilment of the Law they are accounted righteous before\nGod; while, nevertheless, the Law is never satisfied, since reason\ndoes nothing except certain civil works, and, in the mean time\nneither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly believes that God cares\nfor it.  And although they speak of this habit, yet, without the\nrighteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in man, nor\ncan it be understood what the love of God is.\n\nTheir feigning a distinction between _meritum congrui_ and _meritum\ncondigni_ [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice in\norder not to appear openly to Pelagianize, For, if God necessarily\ngives grace for the _meritum congrui_ [due merit], it is no longer\n_meritum congrui_, but _meritum condigni_ [a true duty and complete\nmerit].  But they do not know what they are saying.  After this habit\nof love [is there], they imagine that man can acquire _merit de\ncondigno_.  And yet they bid us doubt whether there be a habit\npresent.  How, therefore, do they know whether they acquire merit _de\ncongruo_ or _de condigno_ [in full, or half]?  But this whole matter\nwas fabricated by idle men [But, good God! these are mere inane ideas\nand dreams of idle, wretched, inexperienced men who do not much\nreduce the Bible to practise], who did not know how the remission of\nsins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of\nconscience, trust in works is driven out of us.  Secure hypocrites\nalways judge that they acquire _merit de condigno_, whether the habit\nbe present or be not present, because men naturally trust in their\nown righteousness, but terrified consciences waver and hesitate, and\nthen seek and accumulate other works in order to find rest.  Such\nconsciences never think that they acquire merit _de condigno_, and\nthey rush into despair unless they hear, in addition to the doctrine\nof the Law, the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission of sins\nand the righteousness of faith.  [Thus some stories are told that\nwhen the Barefooted monks had in vain praised their order and good\nworks to some good consciences in the hour of death, they at last had\nto be silent concerning their order and St. Franciscus, and to say:\n\"Dear man, Christ has died for you.\" This revived and refreshed in\ntrouble, and alone gave peace and comfort.]\n\nThus the adversaries teach nothing but the righteousness of reason,\nor certainly of the Law, upon which they look just as the Jews upon\nthe veiled face of Moses, and, in secure hypocrites who think that\nthey satisfy the Law, they excite presumption and empty confidence in\nworks [they place men on a sand foundation, their own works] and\ncontempt of the grace of Christ.  On the contrary, they drive timid\nconsciences to despair, which, laboring with doubt, never can\nexperience what faith is, and how efficacious it is; thus, at last\nthey utterly despair.\n\nNow, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely,\nthat God requires it, and that, because of God's commandment, the\nhonorable works which the Decalog commands must necessarily be\nperformed, according to the passage Gal. 3, 24: The Law was our\nschoolmaster; likewise 1 Tim. 1, 9: The Law is made for the ungodly.\nFor God wishes those who are carnal [gross sinners] to be restrained\nby civil discipline, and to maintain this, He has given laws, letters,\ndoctrine, magistrates, penalties.  And this righteousness reason, by\nits own strength, can, to a certain extent, work, although it is\noften overcome by natural weakness, and by the devil impelling it to\nmanifest crimes.  Now, although we cheerfully assign this\nrighteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt\nnature has no greater good [in this life and in a worldly nature,\nnothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue], and Aristotle\nsays aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more\nbeautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily\nrewards), yet it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ.\n\nFor it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction,\nand not true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.\n\nFalse also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God\nbecause of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].\n\nFalse also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love\nGod above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear\nGod to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to\nobey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet what\nbelongs to others, etc.; although reason can work civil works.\n\nFalse also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who,\nwithout grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments\nof God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in\ntheir hearts].  We have testimonies for this our belief, not only\nfrom the Scriptures, but also from the Fathers.  For in opposition to\nthe Pelagians, Augustine contends at great length that grace is not\ngiven because of our merits.  And in _De Natura et Gratia_ he says:\nIf natural ability, through the free will, suffice both for learning\nto know how one ought to live and for living aright, then Christ has\ndied in vain, then the offense of the Cross is made void.  Why may I\nnot also here cry out?  Yea I will cry out, and, with Christian grief,\nwill chide them: Christ has become of no effect unto you whosoever\nof you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace.  Gal. 5, 4;\ncf. 2, 21. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and\ngoing about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted\nthemselves unto the righteousness of God.  For Christ is the end of\nthe Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.  Rom. 10 3. 4.\nAnd John 8, 36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be\nfree indeed.  Therefore by reason we cannot be freed from sins and\nmerit the remission of sins.  And in John 3, 5 it is written: Except\na man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the\nkingdom of God.  But if it is necessary to be born again of the Holy\nGhost the righteousness of reason does not justify us before God, and\ndoes not fulfil the Law, Rom. 3, 23: All have come short of the glory\nof God, i.e., are destitute of the wisdom and righteousness of God,\nwhich acknowledges and glorifies God.  Likewise Rom. 8, 7. 8: The\ncarnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law\nof God, neither indeed can be.  So then they that are in the flesh\ncannot please God.  These testimonies are so manifest that, to use\nthe words of Augustine which he employed in this case, they do not\nneed an acute understanding, but only an attentive hearer.  If the\ncarnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh certainly does not love\nGod; if it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it cannot love God.\nIf the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh sins even when we\ndo external civil works.  If it cannot be subject to the Law of God,\nit certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, it\npossesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise.  The\nadversaries consider only the precepts of the Second Table which\ncontain civil righteousness that reason understands.  Content with\nthis, they think that they satisfy the Law of God.  In the mean time\nthey do not see the First Table which commands that we love God, that\nwe declare as certain that God is angry with sin, that we truly fear\nGod, that we declare as certain that God hears prayer.  But the human\nheart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God's\njudgment, or in punishment flees from, and hates, God when He judges.\nTherefore it does not obey the First Table.  Since, therefore,\ncontempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God and concerning\nthe threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even\nwhen, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do\nthem with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not\nof faith is sin.  For such persons perform their works with contempt\nof God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or\nthat he is regarded or heard by God.  This contempt vitiates works\nseemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.\n\nLastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who\nare under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love,\nwhich springs from their mind, since it is impossible to love God,\nunless the remission of sins be apprehended first by faith.  For the\nheart, truly feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He be\nshown to have been reconciled.  As long as He terrifies us, and seems\nto cast us into eternal death, human nature is not able to take\ncourage, so as to love a wrathful, judging, and punishing God [poor,\nweak nature must lose heart and courage, and must tremble before such\ngreat wrath, which so fearfully terrifies and punishes, and can never\nfeel a spark of love before God Himself comforts].  It is easy for\nidle men to feign such dreams concerning love as, that a person\nguilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they do\nnot feel what the wrath or judgment of God is.  But in agony of\nconscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences the\nemptiness of these philosophical speculations.  Paul says, Rom. 4,15:\nThe Law worketh wrath.  He does not say that by the Law men merit the\nremission of sins.  For the Law always accuses and terrifies\nconsciences.  Therefore it does not justify, because conscience\nterrified by the Law flees from the judgment of God.  Therefore they\nerr who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the\nremission of sins.  It is sufficient for us to have said these things\nconcerning the righteousness of reason or of the Law, which the\nadversaries teach.  For after a while, when we will declare our\nbelief concerning the righteousness of faith, the subject itself will\ncompel us to adduce more testimonies, which also will be of service\nin overthrowing the errors of the adversaries which we have thus far\nreviewed.\n\nBecause, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law\nof God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death,\non this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be\njustified but the promise of the remission of sins and of\njustification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given for\nus in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world,\nand has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator.  And\nthis promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not read\nthus: Through Christ you have grace salvation, etc., if you merit it],\nbut freely offers the remission of sins and justification, as Paul\nsays, Rom. 11, 6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace.  And\nin another place, Rom. 3, 21: The righteousness of God without the\nLaw is manifested, i.e., the remission of sins is freely offered.\nNor does reconciliation depend upon our merits.  Because, if the\nremission of sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliation\nwere from the Law, it would be useless.  For, as we do not fulfil the\nLaw, it would also follow that we would never obtain the promise of\nreconciliation.  Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 4, 14: For if they which are\nof the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none\neffect.  For if the promise would require the condition of our merits\nand the Law, which we never fulfil, it would follow that the promise\nwould be useless.\n\nBut since justification is obtained through the free promise, it\nfollows that we cannot justify ourselves.  Otherwise, wherefore would\nthere be need to promise?  [And why should Paul so highly extol and\npraise grace?] For since the promise cannot be received except by\nfaith, the Gospel, which is properly the promise of the remission of\nsins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the\nrighteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach.  Nor\nis this the righteousness of the Law.  For the Law requires of us our\nworks and our perfection.  But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ's\nsake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death,\nreconciliation, which is received, not by works, but by faith alone.\nThis faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only\nconfidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ.  This\nspecial faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for\nChrist's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake\nGod is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and\njustifies us.  And because in repentance, i.e. in terrors, it\ncomforts and encourages hearts it regenerates us, and brings the Holy\nGhost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law, namely, to love\nGod, truly to fear God, truly to be confident that God hears prayer,\nand to obey God in all afflictions; it mortifies concupiscence, etc.\nThus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins,\nsets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it\ndoes not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside\nlike a little feather by a hurricane].  This faith is the true\nknowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and\nregenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law.  And of\nthis faith not a syllable exists in the doctrine of our adversaries.\nHence we find fault with the adversaries, equally because they teach\nonly the righteousness of the Law and because they do not teach the\nrighteousness of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of\nfaith in Christ.\n\n\n\n\nPart 3\n\n\n_What Is Justifying Faith?_\n\nThe adversaries feign that faith is only a knowledge of the history,\nand therefore teach that it can coexist with mortal sin.  Hence they\nsay nothing concerning faith, by which Paul so frequently says that\nmen are justified, because those who are accounted righteous before\nGod do not live in mortal sin.  But that faith which justifies is not\nmerely a knowledge of history, [not merely this, that I know the\nstories of Christ's birth, suffering, etc. (that even the devils know,\n)] but it is to assent to the promise of God, in which for Christ's\nsake, the remission of sins and justification are freely offered.\n[It is the certainty or the certain trust in the heart, when, with my\nwhole heart, I regard the promises of God as certain and true,\nthrough which there are offered me, without my merit, the forgiveness\nof sins, grace, and all salvation, through Christ the Mediator.] And\nthat no one may suppose that it is mere knowledge we will add further:\nit is to wish and to receive the offered promise of the remission of\nsins and of justification.  [Faith is that my whole heart takes to\nitself this treasure.  It is not my doing, not my presenting or\ngiving, not my work or preparation, but that a heart comforts itself,\nand is perfectly confident with respect to this, namely, that God\nmakes a present and gift to us, and not we to Him, that He sheds upon\nus every treasure of grace in Christ.]\n\nAnd the difference between this faith and the righteousness of the\nLaw can be easily discerned.  Faith is the _latreia_ [divine service],\nwhich receives the benefits offered by God; the righteousness of the\nLaw is the _latreia_ [divine service] which offers to God our merits.\nBy faith God wishes to be worshiped in this way, that we receive\nfrom Him those things which He promises and offers.\n\nNow, that faith signifies, not only a knowledge of the history, but\nsuch faith as assents to the promise, Paul plainly testifies when he\nsays, Rom. 4, 16: Therefore it is of faith, to the end the promise\nmight be sure.  For he judges that the promise cannot be received\nunless by faith.  Wherefore he puts them together as things that\nbelong to one another, and connects promise and faith.  [There Paul\nfastens and binds together these two, thus: Wherever there is a\npromise faith is required and conversely, wherever faith is required\nthere must be a promise.] Although it will be easy to decide what\nfaith is if we consider the Creed where this article certainly stands:\nThe forgiveness of sins.  Therefore it is not enough to believe that\nChrist was born, suffered, was raised again, unless we add also this\narticle, which is the purpose of the history: The forgiveness of sins.\nTo this article the rest must be referred, namely, that for\nChrist's sake, and not for the sake of our merits, forgiveness of\nsins is given us.  For what need was there that Christ was given for\nour sins if for our sins our merits can make satisfaction?\n\nAs often, therefore, as we speak of justifying faith, we must keep in\nmind that these three objects concur: the promise, and that, too,\ngratuitous, and the merits of Christ, as the price and propitiation.\nThe promise is received by faith; the \"gratuitous\" excludes our\nmerits, and signifies that the benefit is offered only through mercy;\nthe merits of Christ are the price, because there must be a certain\npropitiation for our sins.  Scripture frequently implores mercy, and\nthe holy Fathers often say that we are saved by mercy.  As often,\ntherefore, as mention is made of mercy, we must keep in mind that\nfaith is there required, which receives the promise of mercy.  And,\nagain, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be\nunderstood, namely, the promised mercy.  For faith justifies and\nsaves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only\nbecause it receives the promised mercy.\n\nAnd throughout the prophets and the psalms this worship, this\n_latreia_, is highly praised, although the Law does not teach the\ngratuitous remission of sins.  But the Fathers knew the promise\nconcerning Christ that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins.\nTherefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for\nour sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a\nmatter [could not pay so great a debt].  Accordingly, they received\ngratuitous mercy and remission of sins by faith, just as the saints\nin the New Testament.  Here belong those frequent repetitions\nconcerning mercy and faith, in the psalms and the prophets, as this,\nPs. 130, 3 sq.: If Thou Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who\nshall stand?  Here David confesses his sins and does not recount his\nmerits.  He adds; But there is forgiveness with Thee.  Here he\ncomforts himself by his trust in God's mercy, and he cites the\npromise: My soul doth wait and in His Word do I hope, i.e., because\nThou hast promised the remission of sins, I am sustained by this Thy\npromise.  Therefore the fathers also were justified, not by the Law\nbut by the promise and faith.  And it is amazing that the adversaries\nextenuate faith to such a degree, although they see that it is\neverywhere praised as an eminent service, as in Ps. 50, 15: Call upon\nMe in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee.  Thus God wishes\nHimself to be known, thus He wishes Himself to be worshiped, that\nfrom Him we receive benefits, and receive them, too, because of His\nmercy, and not because of our merits.  This is the richest\nconsolation in all afflictions [physical or spiritual, in life or in\ndeath as all godly persons know].  And such consolations the\nadversaries abolish when they extenuate and disparage faith, and\nteach only that by means of works and merits men treat with God [that\nwe treat with God, the great Majesty, by means of our miserable,\nbeggarly works and merits].\n\n\n\n\nPart 4\n\n\n_That Faith in Christ Justifies._\n\nIn the first place, lest any one may think that we speak concerning\nan idle knowledge of the history, we must declare how faith is\nobtained [how the heart begins to believe].  Afterward we will show\nboth that it justifies, and how this ought to be understood, and we\nwill explain the objections of the adversaries.  Christ, in the last\nchapter of Luke 24, 47, commands that repentance and remission of\nsins should be preached in His name.  For the Gospel convicts all men\nthat they are under sin, that they all are subject to eternal wrath\nand death, and offers for Christ's sake remission of sin and\njustification, which is received by faith.  The preaching of\nrepentance, which accuses us, terrifies consciences with true and\ngrave terrors.  [For the preaching of repentance, or this declaration\nof the Gospel: Amend your lives!  Repent!  When it truly penetrates\nthe heart, terrifies the conscience, and is no jest, but a great\nterror, in which the conscience feels its misery and sin and the\nwrath of God.] In these, hearts ought again to receive consolation.\nThis happens if they believe the promise of Christ, that for His sake\nwe have remission of sins.  This faith, encouraging and consoling in\nthese fears, receives remission of sins, justifies and quickens.  For\nthis consolation is a new and spiritual life [a new birth and a new\nlife].  These things are plain and clear, and can be understood by\nthe pious, and have testimonies of the Church [as is to be seen in\nthe conversion of Paul and Augustine].  The adversaries nowhere can\nsay how the Holy Ghost is given.  They imagine that the Sacraments\nconfer the Holy Ghost _ex opere operato_, without a good emotion in\nthe recipient, as though, indeed, the gift of the Holy Ghost were an\nidle matter.\n\nBut since we speak of such faith as is not an idle thought, but of\nthat which liberates from death and produces a new life in hearts\n[which is such a new light, life, and force in the heart as to renew\nour heart, mind, and spirit, makes new men of us and new creatures,]\nand is the work of the Holy Ghost; this does not coexist with mortal\nsin [for how can light and darkness coexist?], but as long as it is\npresent, produces good fruits as we will say after a while.  For\nconcerning the conversion of the wicked, or concerning the mode of\nregeneration, what can be said that is more simple and more clear?\nLet them, from so great an array of writers, adduce a single\ncommentary upon the Sententiae that speaks of the mode of\nregeneration.  When they speak of the habit of love, they imagine\nthat men merit it through works and they do not teach that it is\nreceived through the Word, precisely as also the Anabaptists teach at\nthis time.  But God cannot be treated with, God cannot be apprehended,\nexcept through the Word.  Accordingly, justification occurs through\nthe Word, just as Paul says, Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of\nGod unto salvation to every one that believeth.  Likewise 10, 17:\nFaith cometh by hearing.  And proof can be derived even from this\nthat faith justifies, because, if justification occurs only through\nthe Word, and the Word is apprehended only by faith, it follows that\nfaith justifies.  But there are other and more important reasons.  We\nhave said these things thus far in order that we might show the mode\nof regeneration, and that the nature of faith [what is, or is not,\nfaith], concerning which we speak, might be understood.\n\nNow we will show that faith [and nothing else] justifies.  Here, in\nthe first place readers must be admonished of this, that just as it\nis necessary to maintain this sentence: Christ is Mediator, so is it\nnecessary to defend that faith justifies, [without works].  For how\nwill Christ be Mediator if in justification we do not use Him as\nMediator; if we do not hold that for His sake we are accounted\nrighteous?  But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that\nfor His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us.  Likewise,\njust as we ought to maintain that, apart from the Law, the promise\nof Christ is necessary, so also is it needful to maintain that faith\njustifies.  [For the Law does not preach the forgiveness of sin by\ngrace.] For the Law cannot be performed unless the Holy Ghost be\nfirst received.  It is, therefore, needful to maintain that the\npromise of Christ is necessary.  But this cannot be received except\nby faith.  Therefore, those who deny that faith justifies, teach\nnothing but the Law, both Christ and the Gospel being set aside.\n\nBut when it is said that faith justifies, some perhaps understand it\nof the beginning, namely, that faith is the beginning of\njustification or preparation for justification, so that not faith\nitself is that through which we are accepted by God, but the works\nwhich follow; and they dream, accordingly, that faith is highly\npraised, because it is the beginning.  For great is the importance of\nthe beginning, as they commonly say, _Archae aemioy pantos_, The\nbeginning is half of everything; just as if one would say that\ngrammar makes the teachers of all arts, because it prepares for other\narts, although in fact it is his own art that renders every one an\nartist.  We do not believe thus concerning faith, but we maintain\nthis, that properly and truly, by faith itself, we are for Christ's\nsake accounted righteous, or are acceptable to God.  And because \"to\nbe justified\" means that out of unjust men just men are made, or born\nagain, it means also that they are pronounced or accounted just.  For\nScripture speaks in both ways.  [The term \"to be justified\" is used\nin two ways: to denote, being converted or regenerated; again, being\naccounted righteous.] Accordingly we wish first to show this, that\nfaith alone makes of an unjust, a just man, i.e., receives remission\nof sins.\n\nThe particle alone offends some, although even Paul says, Rom. 3, 28:\nWe conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of\nthe Law.  Again, Eph. 2, 8: It is the gift of God; not of works, lest\nany man should boast.  Again, Rom. 3, 24: Being justified freely.  If\nthe exclusive alone displeases, let them remove from Paul also the\nexclusives freely, not of works, it is the gift, etc. For these also\nare [very strong] exclusives.  It is, however, the opinion of merit\nthat we exclude.  We do not exclude the Word or Sacraments, as the\nadversaries falsely charge us.  For we have said above that faith is\nconceived from the Word, and we honor the ministry of the Word in the\nhighest degree.  Love also and works must follow faith.  Wherefore,\nthey are not excluded so as not to follow, but confidence in the\nmerit of love or of works is excluded in justification.  And this we\nwill clearly show.\n\n\n\n\nPart 5\n\n\n_That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ._\n\nWe think that even the adversaries acknowledge that, in justification,\nthe remission of sins is necessary first.  For we all are under sin.\nWherefore we reason thus:-To attain the remission of sins is to be\njustified, according to Ps. 32, 1: Blessed is he whose transgression\nis forgiven.  By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because\nof love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love\nfollows faith.  Therefore by faith alone we are justified,\nunderstanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of\nan unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.\n\nIt will thus become easy to declare the minor premise [that we obtain\nforgiveness of sin by faith, not by love] if we know how the\nremission of sins occurs.  The adversaries with great indifference\ndispute whether the remission of sins and the infusion of grace are\nthe same change [whether they are one change or two].  Being idle men,\nthey did not know what to answer [cannot speak at all on this\nsubject].  In the remission of sins, the terrors of sin and of\neternal death, in the heart, must be overcome, as Paul testifies, 1\nCor. 15, 56 sq.: The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin\nis the Law.  But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory\nthrough our Lord Jesus Christ.  That is, sin terrifies consciences,\nthis occurs through the Law, which shows the wrath of God against sin;\nbut we gain the victory through Christ.  How?  By faith, when we\ncomfort ourselves by confidence in the mercy promised for Christ's\nsake.  Thus, therefore we prove the minor proposition.  The wrath of\nGod cannot be appeased if we set against it our own works, because\nChrist has been set forth as a Propitiator, so that, for His sake,\nthe Father may become reconciled to us.  But Christ is not\napprehended as a Mediator except by faith.  Therefore, by faith alone\nwe obtain remission of sins when we comfort our hearts with\nconfidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake.  Likewise Paul,\nRom. 5, 2, says: By whom also we have access, and adds, by faith.\nThus, therefore, we are reconciled to the Father, and receive\nremission of sins when we are comforted with confidence in the mercy\npromised for Christ's sake.  The adversaries regard Christ as\nMediator and Propitiator for this reason, namely, that He has merited\nthe habit of love; they do not urge us to use Him now as Mediator,\nbut, as though Christ were altogether buried, they imagine that we\nhave access through our own works, and, through these, merit this\nhabit and afterwards, by this love, come to God.  Is not this to bury\nChrist altogether, and to take away the entire doctrine of faith?\nPaul, on the contrary, teaches that we have access, i.e.,\nreconciliation, through Christ.  And to show how this occurs, he adds\nthat we have access by faith.  By faith, therefore, for Christ's sake,\nwe receive remission of sins.  We cannot set our own love and our\nown works over against God's wrath.\n\nSecondly.  It is certain that sins are forgiven for the sake of\nChrist, as Propitiator, Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath set forth to be a\npropitiation.  Moreover, Paul adds: through faith.  Therefore this\nPropitiator thus benefits us, when by faith we apprehend the mercy\npromised in Him, and set it against the wrath and judgment of God.\nAnd to the same effect it is written, Heb. 4, 14. 16: Seeing, then,\nthat we have a great High Priest, etc., let us therefore come with\nconfidence.  For the Apostle bids us come to God, not with confidence\nin our own merits, but with confidence in Christ as a High Priest;\ntherefore he requires faith.\n\nThirdly.  Peter, in Acts 10, 43, says: To Him give all the prophets\nwitness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shall\nreceive remission of sins.  How could this be said more clearly?  We\nreceive remission of sins, he says, through His name i.e., for His\nsake; therefore, not for the sake of our merits, not for the sake of\nour contrition, attrition, love, worship, works.  And he adds: When\nwe believe in Him.  Therefore he requires faith.  For we cannot\napprehend the name of Christ except by faith.  Besides he cites the\nagreement of all the prophets.  This is truly to cite the authority\nof the Church.  [For when all the holy prophets bear witness, that is\ncertainly a glorious, great excellent, powerful decretal and\ntestimony.] But of this topic we will speak again after a while, when\ntreating of \"Repentance.\"\n\nFourthly.  Remission of sins is something promised for Christ's sake.\nTherefore it cannot be received except by faith alone.  For a\npromise cannot be received except by faith alone.  Rom. 4, 16:\nTherefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end that\nthe promise might be sure; as though he were to say: \"If the matter\nwere to depend upon our merits, the promise would be uncertain and\nuseless, because we never could determine when we would have\nsufficient merit.\" And this, experienced consciences can easily\nunderstand [and would not, for a thousand worlds, have our salvation\ndepend upon ourselves].  Accordingly, Paul says, Gal. 3, 22: But the\nScripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of\nJesus Christ might be given to them that believe.  He takes merit\naway from us, because he says that all are guilty and concluded under\nsin; then he adds that the promise, namely, of the remission of sins\nand of justification, is given, and adds how the promise can be\nreceived, namely, by faith.  And this reasoning, derived from the\nnature of a promise, is the chief reasoning [a veritable rock] in\nPaul, and is often repeated.  Nor can anything be devised or imagined\nwhereby this argument of Paul can be overthrown.  Wherefore let not\ngood minds suffer themselves to be forced from the conviction that we\nreceive remission of sins for Christ's sake, only through faith.  In\nthis they have sure and firm consolation against the terrors of sin,\nand against eternal death and against all the gates of hell.\n[Everything else is a foundation of sand that sinks in trials.]\n\nBut since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith\nalone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted\nrighteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity,\nbut through mercy for Christ's sake, provided only they by faith\napprehend this mercy.  Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith\nwe are accounted righteous, Rom. 3, 26. We, therefore, will add\ntestimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very\nrighteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely,\nnot because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it\nreceives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ's sake\nHe wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him, or because He\nknows that Christ of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness,\nand sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30.\n\nIn the Epistle to the Romans, Paul discusses this topic especially,\nand declares that, when we believe that God, for Christ's sake is\nreconciled to us, we are justified freely by faith.  And this\nproposition, which contains the statement of the entire discussion\n[the principal matter of all Epistles, yea, of the entire Scriptures],\nhe maintains in the third chapter: We conclude that a man is\njustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law, Rom. 3, 28. Here\nthe adversaries interpret that this refers to Levitical ceremonies\n[not to other virtuous works].  But Paul speaks not only of the\nceremonies, but of the whole Law.  For he quotes afterward (7, 7)\nfrom the _Decalog_: Thou shalt not covet.  And if moral works [that\nare not Jewish ceremonies] would merit the remission of sins and\njustification, there would also be no need of Christ and the promise,\nand all that Paul speaks of the promise would be overthrown.  He\nwould also have been wrong in writing to the Ephesians, 2, 8: By\ngrace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is\nthe gift of God, not of works.  Paul likewise refers to Abraham and\nDavid, Rom. 4, 1. 6. But they had the command of God concerning\ncircumcision.  Therefore, if any works justified these works must\nalso have justified at the time that they had a command.  But\nAugustine teaches correctly that Paul speaks of the entire Law, as he\ndiscusses at length in his book, Of the Spirit and Letter, where he\nsays finally: These matters, therefore, having been considered and\ntreated, according to the ability that the Lord has thought worthy to\ngive us, we infer that man is not justified by the precepts of a good\nlife, but by faith in Jesus Christ.\n\nAnd lest we may think that the sentence that faith justifies, fell\nfrom Paul inconsiderately, he fortifies and confirms this by a long\ndiscussion in the fourth chapter to the Romans, and afterwards\nrepeats it in all his epistles.  Thus he says, Rom. 4, 4. 5: To him\nthat worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But\nto him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the\nungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.  Here he clearly\nsays that faith itself is imputed for righteousness.  Faith,\ntherefore, is that thing which God declares to be righteousness, and\nhe adds that it is imputed freely, and says that it could not be\nimputed freely, if it were due on account of works.  Wherefore he\nexcludes also the merit of moral works [not only Jewish ceremonies,\nbut all other good works].  For if justification before God were due\nto these, faith would not be imputed for righteousness without works.\nAnd afterwards, Rom. 4, 9: For we say that faith was reckoned to\nAbraham for righteousness.  Chapter 5, 1 says: Being justified by\nfaith, we have peace with God, i.e., we have consciences that are\ntranquil and joyful before God.  Rom. 10, 10: With the heart man\nbelieveth unto righteousness.  Here he declares that faith is the\nrighteousness of the heart.  Gal. 2, 15: We have believed in Christ\nJesus that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by\nthe works of the Law.  Eph. 2, 8. For by grace are ye saved through\nfaith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of\nworks, lest any man should boast.\n\nJohn 1, 12: To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to\nthem that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of\nthe will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.  John 3, 14.\n15: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must\nthe Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should\nnot perish.  Likewise, v. 17: For God sent not His Son into the world\nto condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.\nHe that believeth on Him is not condemned.\n\nActs 13, 38. 39: Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren,\nthat through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins;\nand by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which\nye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.  How could the office\nof Christ and justification be declared more clearly?  The Law, he\nsays, did not justify.  Therefore Christ was given, that we may\nbelieve that for His sake we are justified.  He plainly denies\njustification to the Law.  Hence, for Christ's sake we are accounted\nrighteous when we believe that God, for His sake, has been reconciled\nto us.  Acts 4, 11. 12: This is the stone which was set at naught of\nyou builders, which is become the head of the corner.  Neither is\nthere salvation in any other; for there is none other name under\nheaven given among men whereby we must be saved.  But the name of\nChrist is apprehended only by faith.  [I cannot believe in the name\nof Christ in any other way than when I hear His merit preached, and\nlay hold of that.] Therefore, by confidence in the name of Christ,\nand not by confidence in our works, we are saved.  For \"the name\"\nhere signifies the cause which is mentioned because of which\nsalvation is attained.  And to call upon the name of Christ is to\ntrust in the name of Christ, as the cause or price because of which\nwe are saved.  Acts 15, 9: Purifying their hearts by faith.\nWherefore that faith of which the Apostles speak is not idle\nknowledge, but a reality, receiving the Holy Ghost and justifying us\n[not a mere knowledge of history, but a strong powerful work of the\nHoly Ghost, which changes hearts].\n\nHab. 2, 4: The just shall live by his faith.  Here he says, first\nthat men are just by faith by which they believe that God is\npropitious and he adds that the same faith quickens, because this\nfaith produces in the heart peace and joy and eternal life [which\nbegins in the present life].\n\nIs. 53, 11: By His knowledge shall He justify many.  But what is the\nknowledge of Christ unless to know the benefits of Christ, the\npromises which by the Gospel He has scattered broadcast in the world?\nAnd to know these benefits is properly and truly to believe in\nChrist, to believe that that which God has promised for Christ's sake\nHe will certainly fulfil.\n\nBut Scripture is full of such testimonies, since, in some places, it\npresents the Law, and in others the promises concerning Christ, and\nthe remission of sins, and the free acceptance of the sinner for\nChrist's sake.\n\nHere and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant.  For\nAmbrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world\nwas subject to him by the Law for the reason that, according to the\ncommand of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the\nLaw, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived,\nbut guilt is not discharged.  The Law, which made all sinners,\nseemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He\nforgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of\nHis own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us.\nThis is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: \"The Law entered that the offense\nmight abound.  But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.\"\nBecause after the whole world become subject, He took away the sin of\nthe whole world, as he [John] testified, saying, John 1, 29: \"Behold\nthe Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.\" And on this\naccount let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his\ndeeds.  But he who is righteous has it given him because he was\njustified after the laver [of Baptism].  Faith, therefore, is that\nwhich frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed \"whose\ntransgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,\" Ps. 32, 1. These\nare the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies\njustification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free\nthrough the blood of Christ.  Let all the Sententiarists, who are\nadorned with magnificent titles, be collected into one heap.  For\nsome are called angelic; others, subtile; and others irrefragable\n[that is, doctors who cannot err].  When all these have been read and\nreread, they will not be of as much aid for understanding Paul as is\nthis one passage of Ambrose.\n\nTo the same effect, Augustine writes many things against the\nPelagians.  In f the Spirit and Letter he says: The righteousness of\nthe Law, namely, that he who has fulfilled it shall live in it, is\nset forth for this reason that when any one has recognized his\ninfirmity he may attain and work the same and live in it,\nconciliating the Justifier not by his own strength nor by the letter\nof the Law itself (which cannot be done), but by faith.  Except in a\njustified man, there is no right work wherein he who does it may live.\nBut justification is obtained by faith.  Here he clearly says that\nthe Justifier is conciliated by faith, and that justification is\nobtained by faith.  And a little after: By the Law we fear God; by\nfaith we hope in God.  But to those fearing punishment grace is\nhidden; and the soul laboring, etc., under this fear betakes itself\nby faith to God's mercy, in order that He may give what lie commands.\nHere he teaches that by the Law hearts are terrified, but by faith\nthey receive consolation.  He also teaches us to apprehend, by faith,\nmercy, before we attempt to fulfil the Law.  We will shortly cite\ncertain other passages.\n\nTruly, it is amazing that the adversaries are in no way moved by so\nmany passages of Scripture, which clearly ascribe justification to\nfaith, and, indeed, deny it to works.  Do they think that the same is\nrepeated so often for no purpose?  Do they think that these words\nfell inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost?  But they have also devised\nsophistry whereby they elude them.  They say that these passages of\nScripture, (which speak of faith,) ought to be received as referring\nto a _fides formata_, i.e., they do not ascribe justification to\nfaith except on account of love.  Yea, they do not, in any way,\nascribe justification to faith, but only to love, because they dream\nthat faith can coexist with mortal sin.  Whither does this tend,\nunless that they again abolish the promise and return to the Law?  If\nfaith receive the remission of sins on account of love, the remission\nof sins will always be uncertain, because we never love as much as we\nought, yea, we do not love unless our hearts are firmly convinced\nthat the remission of sins has been granted us.  Thus the adversaries,\nwhile they require in the remission of sins and justification\nconfidence in one's own love, altogether abolish the Gospel\nconcerning the free remission of sins; although at the same time,\nthey neither render this love nor understand it, unless they believe\nthat the remission of sins is freely received.\n\nWe also say that love ought to follow faith as Paul also says, Gal. 5,\n6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor\nuncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.  And yet we must not\nthink on that account that by confidence in this love or on account\nof this love we receive the remission of sins and reconciliation just\nas we do not receive the remission of sins because of other works\nthat follow.  But the remission of sins is received by faith alone,\nand, indeed, by faith properly so called, because the promise cannot\nbe received except by faith.  But faith, properly so called, is that\nwhich assents to the promise [is when my heart, and the Holy Ghost in\nthe heart, says: The promise of God is true and certain].  Of this\nfaith Scripture speaks.  And because it receives the remission of\nsins, and reconciles us to God, by this faith we are [like Abraham]\naccounted righteous for Christ's sake before we love and do the works\nof the Law, although love necessarily follows.  Nor, indeed, is this\nfaith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but\nit is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and\nterrified minds are encouraged and quickened.  And because this faith\nalone receives the remission of sins, and renders us acceptable to\nGod, and brings the Holy Ghost, it could be more correctly called\n_gratia gratum faciens_, grace rendering one pleasing to God, than an\neffect following, namely, love.\n\nThus far, in order that the subject might be made quite clear, we\nhave shown with sufficient fulness, both from testimonies of\nScripture, and arguments derived from Scripture, that by faith alone\nwe obtain the remission of sins for Christ's sake, and that by faith\nalone we are justified, i.e., of unrighteous men made righteous, or\nregenerated.  But how necessary the knowledge of this faith is, can\nbe easily judged, because in this alone the office of Christ is\nrecognized, by this alone we receive the benefits of Christ; this\nalone brings sure and firm consolation to pious minds.  And in the\nChurch [if there is to be a church, if there is to be a Christian\nCreed], it is necessary that there should be the [preaching and]\ndoctrine [by which consciences are not made to rely on a dream or to\nbuild on a foundation of sand, but] from which the pious may receive\nthe sure hope of salvation.  For the adversaries give men bad advice\n[therefore the adversaries are truly unfaithful bishops, unfaithful\npreachers and doctors; they have hitherto given evil counsel to\nconsciences, and still do so by introducing such doctrine] when they\nbid them doubt whether they obtain remission of sins.  For how will\nsuch persons sustain themselves in death who have heard nothing of\nthis faith, and think that they ought to doubt whether they obtain\nthe remission of sins?  Besides it is necessary that in the Church of\nChrist the Gospel be retained, i.e., the promise that for Christ's\nsake sins are freely remitted.  Those who teach nothing of this faith,\nconcerning which we speak, altogether abolish the Gospel.  But the\nscholastics mention not even a word concerning this faith.  Our\nadversaries follow them, and reject this faith.  Nor do they see that,\nby rejecting this faith, they abolish the entire promise concerning\nthe free remission of sins and the righteousness of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nPart 6\n\n\nArticle III: _Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law._\n\nHere the adversaries urge against us: If thou wilt enter into life,\nkeep the commandments, Matt. 19, 17; likewise: The doers of the Law\nshall be justified, Rom. 2, 13, and many other like things concerning\nthe Law and works.  Before we reply to this, we must first declare\nwhat we believe concerning love and the fulfilling of the Law.\n\nIt is written in the prophet, Jer. 31, 33: I will put My Law in their\ninward parts, and write it in their hearts.  And in Rom. 3, 31 Paul\nsays: Do we, then, make void the Law through faith?  God forbid!  Yea,\nwe establish the Law.  And Christ says, Matt. 19, 17: If thou wilt\nenter into life, keep the commandments.  Likewise, 1 Cor. 13, 3: If I\nhave not charity, it profiteth me nothing.  These and similar\nsentences testify that the Law ought to be begun in us, and be kept\nby us more and more [that we are to keep the Law when we have been\njustified by faith, and thus increase more and more in the Spirit].\nMoreover, we speak not of ceremonies, but of that Law which gives\ncommandment concerning the movements of the heart, namely, the\n_Decalog_.  Because, indeed, faith brings the Holy Ghost, and\nproduces in hearts a new life, it is necessary that it should produce\nspiritual movements in hearts.  And what these movements are, the\nprophet, Jer. 31, 33, shows, when he says: I will put My Law into\ntheir inward parts, and write it in their hearts.  Therefore, when we\nhave been justified by faith and regenerated, we begin to fear and\nlove God, to pray to Him, to expect from Him aid, to give thanks and\npraise Him and to obey Him in afflictions.  We begin also to love our\nneighbors, because our hearts have spiritual and holy movements\n[there is now, through the Spirit of Christ a new heart mind, and\nspirit within].\n\nThese things cannot occur until we have been justified by faith, and,\nregenerated, we receive the Holy Ghost: first, because the Law cannot\nbe kept without [the knowledge of] Christ; and likewise the Law\ncannot be kept without the Holy Ghost.  But the Holy Ghost is\nreceived by faith, according to the declaration of Paul, Gal. 3, 14:\nThat we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.  Then,\ntoo, how can the human heart love God while it knows that He is\nterribly angry, and is oppressing us with temporal and perpetual\ncalamities?  But the Law always accuses us, always shows that God is\nangry.  [Therefore, what the scholastics say of the love of God is a\ndream.] God therefore is not loved until we apprehend mercy by faith.\nNot until then does He become a lovable object.\n\nAlthough, therefore, civil works, i.e., the outward works of the Law,\ncan be done, in a measure, without Christ and without the Holy Ghost\n[from our inborn light], nevertheless it appears from what we have\nsaid that those things which belong peculiarly to the divine Law, i.e.,\nthe affections of the heart towards God, which are commanded in the\nfirst table, cannot be rendered without the Holy Ghost.  But our\nadversaries are fine theologians; they regard the second table and\npolitical works; for the first table [in which is contained the\nhighest theology, on which all depends] they care nothing, as though\nit were of no matter; or certainly they require only outward\nobservances.  They in no way consider the Law that is eternal, and\nplaced far above the sense and intellect of all creatures [which\nconcerns the very Deity, and the honor of the eternal Majesty], Deut.\n6, 5: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God with all thine heart.  [This\nthey treat as such a paltry small matter as if it did not belong to\ntheology.]\n\nBut Christ was given for this purpose, namely, that for His sake\nthere might be bestowed on us the remission of sins, and the Holy\nGhost to bring forth in us new and eternal life, and eternal\nrighteousness [to manifest Christ in our hearts, as it is written\nJohn 16, 15: He shall take of the things of Mine, and show them unto\nyou.  Likewise, He works also other gifts, love, thanksgiving,\ncharity, patience, etc.].  Wherefore the Law cannot be truly kept\nunless the Holy Ghost be received through faith.  Accordingly, Paul\nsays that the Law is established by faith, and not made void; because\nthe Law can only then be thus kept when the Holy Ghost is given.  And\nPaul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 15 sq., the veil that covered the face of\nMoses cannot be removed except by faith in Christ, by which the Holy\nGhost is received.  For he speaks thus: But even unto this day, when\nMoses is read, the veil is upon their heart.  Nevertheless, when it\nshall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.  Now the Lord\nis that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.\nPaul understands by the veil the human opinion concerning the\nentire Law, the _Decalog_ and the ceremonies, namely, that hypocrites\nthink that external and civil works satisfy the Law of God and that\nsacrifices and observances justify before God _ex opere operato_.\nBut then this veil is removed from us, i.e., we are freed from this\nerror, when God shows to our hearts our uncleanness and the\nheinousness of sin.  Then, for the first time, we see that we are far\nfrom fulfilling the Law.  Then we learn to know how flesh, in\nsecurity and indifference, does not fear God, and is not fully\ncertain that we are regarded by God, but imagines that men are born\nand die by chance.  Then we experience that we do not believe that\nGod forgives and hears us.  But when, on hearing the Gospel and the\nremission of sins, we are consoled by faith, we receive the Holy\nGhost, so that now we are able to think aright concerning God, and to\nfear and believe God, etc. From these facts it is apparent that the\nLaw cannot be kept without Christ and the Holy Ghost.\n\nWe, therefore, profess that it is necessary that the Law be begun in\nus, and that it be observed continually more and more.  And at the\nsame time we comprehend both spiritual movements and external good\nworks [the good heart within and works without].  Therefore the\nadversaries falsely charge against us that our theologians do not\nteach good works, while they not only require these, but also show\nhow they can be done [that the heart must enter into these works,\nlest they be mere lifeless, cold works of hypocrites].  The result\nconvicts hypocrites, who by their own powers endeavor to fulfil the\nLaw, that they cannot accomplish what they attempt.  [For are they\nfree from hatred, envy, strife, anger, wrath, avarice, adultery, etc.?\nWhy, these vices were nowhere greater than in the cloisters and\nsacred institutes.] For human nature is far too weak to be able by\nits own powers to resist the devil, who holds as captives all who\nhave not been freed through faith.  There is need of the power of\nChrist against the devil, namely, that, inasmuch as we know that for\nChrist's sake we are heard, and have the promise, we may pray for the\ngovernance and defense of the Holy Ghost, that we may neither be\ndeceived and err, nor be impelled to undertake anything contrary to\nGod's will.  [Otherwise we should, every hour, fall into error and\nabominable vices.] Just as Ps. 68, 18 teaches: Thou hast led\ncaptivity captive; Thou hast received gifts for man.  For Christ has\novercome the devil, and has given to us the promise and the Holy\nGhost, in order that, by divine aid, we ourselves also may overcome.\nAnd 1 John 3, 8: For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that\nHe might destroy the works of the devil.  Again, we teach not only\nhow the Law can be observed, but also how God is pleased if anything\nbe done, namely, not because we render satisfaction to the Law, but\nbecause we are in Christ, as we shall say after a little.  It is,\ntherefore, manifest that we require good works.  Yea, we add also\nthis, that it is impossible for love to God, even though it be small,\nto be sundered from faith, because through Christ we come to the\nFather, and, the remission of sins having been received, we now are\ntruly certain that we have a God, i.e., that God cares for us; we\ncall upon Him, we give Him thanks, we fear Him, we love Him as John\nteaches in his first Epistle, 4, 19: We love Him he says, because He\nfirst loved us, namely, because He gave His Son for us, and forgave\nus our sins.  Thus he indicates that faith precedes and love follows.\nLikewise the faith of which we speak exists in repentance i.e., it\nis conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of\nGod against our sins, and seeks the remission of sins, and to be\nfreed from sin.  And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith\nought to grow and be strengthened.  Wherefore it cannot exist in\nthose who live according to the flesh, who are delighted by their own\nlusts and obey them.  Accordingly, Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is,\ntherefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who\nwalk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.  So, too, vv. 12. 13:\nWe are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.  For if ye\nlive after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do\nmortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.  Wherefore, the faith\nwhich receives remission of sins in a heart terrified and fleeing\nfrom sin does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither\ndoes it coexist with mortal sin.\n\nFrom these effects of faith the adversaries select one, namely, love,\nand teach that love justifies.  Thus it is clearly apparent that they\nteach only the Law.  They do not teach that remission of sins through\nfaith is first received.  They do not teach of Christ as Mediator,\nthat for Christ's sake we have a gracious God; but because of our\nlove.  And yet, what the nature of this love is they do not say,\nneither can they say.  They proclaim that they fulfil the Law,\nalthough this glory belongs properly to Christ; and they set against\nthe judgment of God confidence in their own works; for they say that\nthey _merit de condigno_ (according to righteousness) grace and\neternal life.  This confidence is absolutely impious and vain.  For\nin this life we cannot satisfy the Law, because carnal nature does\nnot cease to bring forth wicked dispositions [evil inclination and\ndesire], even though the Spirit in us resists them.\n\nBut some one may ask: Since we also confess that love is a work of\nthe Holy Ghost, and since it is righteousness, because it is the\nfulfilling of the Law, why do we not teach that it justifies?  To\nthis we must reply: In the first place, it is certain that we receive\nremission of sins, neither through our love nor for the sake of our\nlove, but for Christ's sake, by faith alone.  Faith alone, which\nlooks upon the promise, and knows that for this reason it must be\nregarded as certain that God forgives, because Christ has not died in\nvain, etc., overcomes the terrors of sin and death.  If any one\ndoubts whether sins are remitted him, he dishonors Christ, since he\njudges that his sin is greater or more efficacious than the death and\npromise of Christ although Paul says, Rom. 5, 20: Where sin abounded,\ngrace did much more abound, i.e., that mercy is more comprehensive\n[more powerful, richer, and stronger] than sin.  If any one thinks\nthat he obtains the remission of sins because he loves, he dishonors\nChrist, and will discover in God's judgment that this confidence in\nhis own righteousness is wicked and vain.  Therefore it is necessary\nthat faith [alone] reconciles and justifies.  And as we do not\nreceive remission of sins through other virtues of the Law, or on\naccount of these namely, on account of patience, chastity, obedience\ntowards magistrates, etc., and nevertheless these virtues ought to\nfollow, so, too, we do not receive remission of sins because of love\nto God although it is necessary that this should follow.  Besides,\nthe custom of speech is well known that by the same word we sometimes\ncomprehend by synecdoche the cause and effects.  Thus in Luke 7, 47\nChrist says: Her sins, which are many, are forgiven for she loved\nmuch.  For Christ interprets Himself [this very passage] when He adds:\nThy faith hath saved thee.  Christ, therefore, did not mean that the\nwoman, by that work of love, had merited the remission of sins.  For\nthat is the reason He says: Thy faith hath sated thee.  But faith is\nthat which freely apprehends God's mercy on account of God's Word\n[which relies upon God's mercy and Word, and not upon one's own work].\nIf any one denies that this is faith [if any one imagines that he\ncan rely at the same time upon God and his own works], he does not\nunderstand at all what faith is.  [For the terrified conscience is\nnot satisfied with its own works, but must cry after mercy, and is\ncomforted and encouraged alone by God's Word.] And the narrative\nitself shows in this passage what that is which He calls love.  The\nwoman came with the opinion concerning Christ that with Him the\nremission of sins should be sought.  This worship is the highest\nworship of Christ.  Nothing greater could she ascribe to Christ.  To\nseek from Him the remission of sins was truly to acknowledge the\nMessiah.  Now, thus to think of Christ, thus to worship Him, thus to\nembrace Him, is truly to believe.  Christ, moreover, employed the\nword \"love\" not towards the woman, but against the Pharisee, because\nHe contrasted the entire worship of the Pharisee with the entire\nworship of the woman.  He reproved the Pharisee because he did not\nacknowledge that He was the Messiah, although he rendered Him the\noutward offices due to a guest and a great and holy man.  He points\nto the woman and praises her worship, ointment, tears, etc., all of\nwhich were signs of faith and a confession, namely, that with Christ\nshe sought the remission of sins.  It is indeed a great example which,\nnot without reason, moved Christ to reprove the Pharisee, who was a\nwise and honorable man, but not a believer.  He charges him with\nimpiety, and admonishes him by the example of the woman, showing\nthereby that it is disgraceful to him, that, while an unlearned woman\nbelieves God, he, a doctor of the Law, does not believe, does not\nacknowledge the Messiah, and does not seek from Him remission of sins\nand salvation.  Thus, therefore, He praises the entire worship [faith\nwith its fruits, but towards the Pharisee He names only the fruits\nwhich prove to men that there is faith in the heart] as it often\noccurs in the Scriptures that by one word we embrace many things; as\nbelow we shall speak at greater length in regard to similar passages,\nsuch as Luke 11, 41: Give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold,\nall things are clean unto you.  He requires not only alms, but also\nthe righteousness of faith.  Thus He here says: Her sins, which are\nmany, are forgiven, for she loved much i.e., because she has truly\nworshiped Me with faith and the exercises and signs of faith.  He\ncomprehends the entire worship.  Meanwhile He teaches this, that the\nremission of sins is properly received by faith, although love,\nconfession, and other good fruits ought to follow.  Wherefore He does\nnot mean this, that these fruits are the price, or are the\npropitiation, because of which the remission of sins, which\nreconciles us to God, is given.  We are disputing concerning a great\nsubject, concerning the honor of Christ, and whence good minds may\nseek for sure and firm consolation whether confidence is to be placed\nin Christ or in our works.  Now, if it is to be placed in our works,\nthe honor of Mediator and Propitiator will be withdrawn from Christ.\nAnd yet we shall find, in God's judgment, that this confidence is\nvain, and that consciences rush thence into despair.  But if the\nremission of sins and reconciliation do not occur freely for Christ's\nsake, but for the sake of our love, no one will have remission of\nsins, unless when he has fulfilled the entire Law, because the Law\ndoes not justify as long as it can accuse us.  Therefore it is\nmanifest that, since justification is reconciliation for Christ's\nsake we are justified by faith, because it is very certain that by\nfaith alone the remission of sins is received.\n\nNow, therefore, let us reply to the objection which we have above\nstated: [Why does love not justify anybody before God?] The\nadversaries are right in thinking that love is the fulfilling of the\nLaw, and obedience to the Law is certainly righteousness.  [Therefore\nit would be true that love justifies us if we would keep the Law.\nBut who in truth can say or boast that he keeps the Law, and loves\nGod as the Law has commanded?  We have shown above that God has made\nthe promise of grace, because we cannot observe the Law.  Therefore\nPaul says everywhere that we cannot be justified before God by the\nLaw.] But they make a mistake in this that they think that we are\njustified by the Law.  [The adversaries have to fail at this point,\nand miss the main issue, for in this business they only behold the\nLaw.  For all men's reason and wisdom cannot but hold that we must\nbecome pious by the Law, and that a person externally observing the\nLaw is holy and pious.  But the Gospel faces us about, directs us\naway from the Law to the divine promises, and teaches that we are not\njustified, etc.] Since, however, we are not justified by the Law\n[because no person can keep it], but receive remission of sins and\nreconciliation by faith for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of\nlove or the fulfilling of the Law, it follows necessarily that we are\njustified by faith in Christ.  [For before we fulfil one tittle of\nthe Law, there must be faith in Christ by which we are reconciled to\nGod and first obtain the remission of sin.  Good God, how dare people\ncall themselves Christians or say that they once at least looked into\nor read the books of the Gospel when they still deny that we obtain\nremission of sins by faith in Christ?  Why, to a Christian it is\nshocking merely to hear such a statement.]\n\nAgain, [in the second place,] this fulfilling of the Law or obedience\ntowards the Law, is indeed righteousness, when it is complete; but in\nus it is small and impure.  [For, although they have received the\nfirst-fruits of the Spirit, and the new, yea the eternal life has\nbegun in them, there still remains a remnant of sin and evil lust,\nand the Law still finds much of which it must accuse us.] Accordingly,\nit is not pleasing for its own sake, and is not accepted for its own\nsake.  But although from those things which have been said above it\nis evident that justification signifies not the beginning of the\nrenewal, but the reconciliation by which also we afterwards are\naccepted, nevertheless it can now be seen much more clearly that the\ninchoate fulfilling of the Law does not justify, because it is\naccepted only on account of faith.  [Trusting in our own fulfilment\nof the Law is sheer idolatry and blaspheming Christ, and in the end\nit collapses and causes our consciences to despair.  Therefore, this\nfoundation shall stand forever, namely, that for Christ's sake we are\naccepted with God, and justified by faith, not on account of our love\nand works.  This we shall make so plain and certain that anybody may\ngrasp it.  As long as the heart is not at peace with God, it cannot\nbe righteous, for it flees from the wrath of God, despairs, and would\nhave God not to judge it.  Therefore the heart cannot be righteous\nand accepted with God while it is not at peace with God.  Now, faith\nalone makes the heart to be content, and obtains peace and life Rom.\n5, 1, because it confidently and frankly relies on the promise of God\nfor Christ's sake.  But our works do not make the heart content, for\nwe always find that they are not pure.  Therefore it must follow that\nwe are accepted with God, and justified by faith alone, when in our\nhearts we conclude that God desires to be gracious to us, not on\naccount of our works and fulfilment of the Law, but from pure grace,\nfor Christ's sake.  What can our opponents bring forward against this\nargument?  What can they invent and devise against the plain truth?\nFor this is quite certain, and experience teaches forcibly enough,\nthat when we truly feel the judgment and wrath of God, or become\nafflicted, our works and worship cannot set the heart at rest.\nScripture indicates this often enough as in Ps. 143, 2: Enter not\ninto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living\nbe justified.  Here he clearly shows that all the saints, all the\npious children of God, who have the Holy Ghost, if God would not by\ngrace forgive them their sin, still have remnants of sin in the flesh.\nFor when David in another place, Ps. 7, 8, says: Judge me O Lord,\naccording to my righteousness, he refers to his cause, and not to his\nrighteousness, and asks God to protect his cause and word, for he\nsays: Judge, O Lord, my cause.  Again, in Ps. 130, 3 he clearly\nstates that no person, not even the greatest saints, can bear God's\njudgment, if He were to observe our iniquity, as he says: If Thou,\nLord, shouldest mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand!  And thus\nsays Job, 9, 28: I was afraid of all my works (Engl. vers., sorrows).\nLikewise chap. 9, 30: If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my\nhands never so clean, yet shalt Thou plunge me in the ditch.  And\nProv. 20, 9: Who can say, I have made my heart clean?  And 1 John 1,\n8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth\nis not in us.  And in the Lord's Prayer the saints ask for the\nforgiveness of sins.  Therefore even the saints have guilt and sins.\nAgain in Num. 14, 18: The innocent will not be innocent.  And\nZechariah, 2, 13, says: Be silent O all flesh, before the Lord.  And\nIsaiah 40, 6 sqq.: All flesh is grass, i.e., flesh and righteousness\nof the flesh cannot endure the judgment of God.  And Jonah says, 2, 9:\nThey that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.  Therefore,\npure mercy preserves us, our own works, merits, endeavors, cannot\npreserve us.  These and similar declarations in the Scriptures\ntestify that our works are unclean, and that we need mercy.\nWherefore works do not render consciences pacified but only mercy\napprehended by faith does.] Nor must we trust that we are accounted\nrighteous before God by our own perfection and fulfilling of the Law,\nbut rather for Christ's sake.\n\nFirst [in the third place], because Christ does not cease to be\nMediator after we have been renewed.  They err who imagine that He\nhas merited only a first grace, and that afterwards we please God and\nmerit eternal life by our fulfilling of the Law.  Christ remains\nMediator, and we ought always to be confident that for His sake we\nhave a reconciled God even although we are unworthy.  As Paul clearly\nteaches when he says [By whom also we have access to God, Rom. 5, 2.\nFor our best works, even after the grace of the Gospel has been\nreceived, as I stated, are still weak and not at all pure.  For sin\nand Adam's fall are not such a trifling thing as reason holds or\nimagines, it exceeds the reason and thought of all men to understand\nwhat a horrible wrath of God has been handed on to us by that\ndisobedience.  There occurred a shocking corruption of the entire\nhuman nature, which no work of man, but only God Himself, can\nrestore], 1 Cor. 4, 4: I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby\njustified, but he knows that by faith he is accounted righteous for\nChrist's sake, according to the passage: Blessed are they whose\niniquities are forgiven, Ps. 32, 1; Rom. 4, 7. [Therefore we need\ngrace, and the gracious goodness of God, and the forgiveness of sin,\nalthough we have done many good works.] But this remission is always\nreceived by faith.  Likewise, the imputation of the righteousness of\nthe Gospel is from the promise; therefore it is always received by\nfaith, and it always must be regarded certain that by faith we are\nfor Christ's sake, accounted righteous.  If the regenerate ought\nafterwards to think that they will be accepted on account of the\nfulfilling of the Law, when would conscience be certain that it\npleased God, since we never satisfy the Law?  Accordingly, we must\nalways recur to the promise; by this our infirmity must be sustained,\nand we must regard it as certain that we are accounted righteous for\nthe sake of Christ, who is ever at the right hand of God, who also\nmaketh intercession for us, Rom. 8, 34. If any one think that he is\nrighteous and accepted on account of his own fulfilment of the Law,\nand not on account of Christ's promise, he dishonors this High Priest.\nNeither can it be understood how one could imagine that man is\nrighteous before God when Christ is excluded as Propitiator and\nMediator.\n\nAgain [in the fourth place], what need is there of a long discussion?\n[If we were to think that, after we have come to the Gospel and are\nborn again, we were to merit by our works that God be gracious to us,\nnot by faith, conscience would never find rest, but would be driven\nto despair.  For the Law unceasingly accuses us, since we never can\nsatisfy the Law.] All Scripture, all the Church cries out that the\nLaw cannot be satisfied.  Therefore this inchoate fulfilment of the\nLaw does not please on its own account, but on account of faith in\nChrist.  Otherwise the Law always accuses us.  For who loves or fears\nGod sufficiently?  Who with sufficient patience bears the afflictions\nimposed by God?  Who does not frequently doubt whether human affairs\nare ruled by God's counsel or by chance?  Who does not frequently\ndoubt whether he be heard by God?  Who is not frequently enraged\nbecause the wicked enjoy a better lot than the pious, because the\npious are oppressed by the wicked?  Who does satisfaction to his own\ncalling?  Who loves his neighbor as himself?  Who is not tempted by\nlust?  Accordingly Paul says, Rom. 7, 19: The good that I would I do\nnot; but the evil which I would not that I do.  Likewise v. 25: With\nthe mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh, the law\nof sin.  Here he openly declares that he serves the law of sin.  And\nDavid says, Ps. 143, 2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for\nin Thy sight shall no man living be justified.  Here even a servant\nof God prays for the averting of judgment.  Likewise Ps. 32, 2:\nBlessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.\nTherefore, in this our infirmity there is always present sin, which\ncould be imputed, and of which he says a little while after, v. 6:\nFor this shall every one that is godly pray unto Thee.  Here he shows\nthat even saints ought to seek remission of sins.  More than blind\nare those who do not perceive that wicked desires in the flesh are\nsins, of which Paul, Gal. 5, 17, says: The flesh lusteth against the\nSpirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.  The flesh distrusts God,\ntrusts in present things, seeks human aid in calamities, even\ncontrary to God's will, flees from afflictions, which it ought to\nbear because of God's commands, doubts concerning God's mercy, etc.\nThe Holy Ghost in our hearts contends with such dispositions [with\nAdam's sin] in order to suppress and mortify them [this poison of the\nold Adam, this desperately wicked disposition], and to produce new\nspiritual movements.  But concerning this topic we will collect more\ntestimonies below, although they are everywhere obvious not only in\nthe Scriptures, but also in the holy Fathers.\n\nWell does Augustine say: All the commandments of God are fulfilled\nwhen whatever is not done, is forgiven.  Therefore he requires faith\neven in good works [which the Holy Spirit produces in us], in order\nthat we may believe that for Christ's sake we please God, and that\neven the works are not of themselves worthy and pleasing.  And Jerome,\nagainst the Pelagians, says: Then, therefore, we are righteous when\nwe confess that we are sinners, and that our righteousness consists\nnot in our own merit, but in God's mercy.  Therefore, in this\ninchoate fulfilment of the Law, faith ought to be present, which is\ncertain that for Christ's sake we have a reconciled God.  For mercy\ncannot be apprehended unless by faith, as has been repeatedly said\nabove.  [Therefore those who teach that we are not accepted by faith\nfor Christ's sake but for the sake of our own works, lead consciences\ninto despair.] Wherefore, when Paul says, Rom. 3, 31: We establish\nthe Law through faith, by this we ought to understand, not only that\nthose regenerated by faith receive the Holy Ghost, and have movements\nagreeing with God's Law, but it is by far of the greatest importance\nthat we add also this, that we ought to perceive that we are far\ndistant from the perfection of the Law.  Wherefore we cannot conclude\nthat we are accounted righteous before God because of our fulfilling\nof the Law, but in order that the conscience may become tranquil,\njustification must be sought elsewhere.  For we are not righteous\nbefore God as long as we flee from God's judgment, and are angry with\nGod.  Therefore we must conclude that, being reconciled by faith, we\nare accounted righteous for Christ's sake, not for the sake of the\nLaw or our works, but that this inchoate fulfilling of the Law\npleases on account of faith, and that, on account of faith, there is\nno imputation of the imperfection of the fulfilling of the Law, even\nthough the sight of our impurity terrifies us.  Now, if justification\nis to be sought elsewhere, our love and works do not therefore\njustify.  Far above our purity, yea, far above the Law itself ought\nto be placed the death and satisfaction of Christ, presented to us\nthat we might be sure that because of this satisfaction, and not\nbecause of our fulfilling of the Law, we have a gracious God.\n\nPaul teaches this in Gal. 3, 13, when he says: Christ hath redeemed\nus from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us, i.e. the Law\ncondemns all men, but Christ, because without sin He has borne the\npunishment of sin, and been made a victim for us has removed that\nright of the Law to accuse and condemn those who believe in Him,\nbecause He Himself is the propitiation for them for whose sake we are\nnow accounted righteous.  But since they are accounted righteous, the\nLaw cannot accuse or condemn them, even though they have not actually\nsatisfied the Law.  To the same purport he writes to the Colossians,\n2, 10: Ye are complete in Him, as though he were to say: Although ye\nare still far from the perfection of the Law, yet the remnants of sin\ndo not condemn you, because for Christ's sake we have a sure and firm\nreconciliation, if you believe, even though sin inhere in your flesh.\n\nThe promise ought always to be in sight that God, because of His\npromise, wishes for Christ's sake, and not because of the Law or our\nworks, to be gracious and to justify.  In this promise timid\nconsciences ought to seek reconciliation and justification, by this\npromise they ought to sustain themselves, and be confident that for\nChrist's sake, because of His promise, they have a gracious God.\nThus works can never render a conscience pacified, but only the\npromise can.  If, therefore, justification and peace of conscience\nmust be sought elsewhere than in love and works, love and works do\nnot justify, although they are virtues and pertain to the\nrighteousness of the Law, in so far as they are a fulfilling of the\nLaw.  So far also this obedience of the Law justifies by the\nrighteousness of the Law.  But this imperfect righteousness of the\nLaw is not accepted by God, unless on account of faith.  Accordingly\nit does not justify, i.e., it neither reconciles, nor regenerates,\nnor by itself renders us accepted before God.\n\nFrom this it is evident that we are justified before God by faith\nalone [i.e., it obtains the remission of sins and grace for Christ's\nsake and regenerates us.  Likewise, it is quite clear that by faith\nalone the Holy Ghost is received; again, that our works and this\ninchoate fulfilling of the Law do not by themselves please God.  Now,\neven if I abound in good works like Paul or Peter, I must seek my\nrighteousness elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the grace of\nChrist, again, if only faith calms the conscience, it must, indeed be\ncertain that only faith justifies before God.  For, if we wish to\nteach correctly, we must adhere to this, that we are accepted with\nGod not on account of the Law, not on account of works, but for\nChrist's sake.  For the honor, due Christ, must not be given to the\nLaw or our-miserable works.] because by faith alone we receive\nremission of sins and reconciliation, because reconciliation or\njustification is a matter promised for Christ's sake, and not for the\nsake of the Law.  Therefore it is received by faith alone, although,\nwhen the Holy Ghost is given, the fulfilling of the Law follows.\n\n\n\n\nPart 7\n\n\n_Reply to the Arguments of the Adversaries._\n\nNow, when the grounds of this case have been understood, namely, the\ndistinction between the Law and the promises, or the Gospel, it will\nbe easy to resolve the objections of the adversaries.  For they cite\npassages concerning the Law and works, and omit passages concerning\nthe promises.  But a reply can once for all be made to all opinions\nconcerning the Law, namely, that the Law cannot be observed without\nChrist, and that if civil works are wrought without Christ, they do\nnot please God.  [God is not pleased with the person.] Wherefore,\nwhen works are commended, it is necessary to add that faith is\nrequired, that they are commended on account of faith, that they are\nthe fruits and testimonies of faith.  [This our doctrine is, indeed,\nplain; it need not fear the light, and may be held against the Holy\nScriptures.  We have also clearly and correctly presented it here, if\nany will receive instruction and not knowingly deny the truth.  For\nrightly to understand the benefit of Christ and the great treasure of\nthe Gospel (which Paul extols so greatly), we must separate, on the\none hand, the promise of God and the grace that is offered, and, on\nthe other hand the Law, as far as the heavens are from the earth.  In\nshaky matters many explanations are needed, but in a good matter one\nor two thoroughgoing explanations dissolve all objections which men\nthink they can raise.] Ambiguous and dangerous cases produce many and\nvarious solutions.  For the judgment of the ancient poet is true:\n\n\"An unjust cause, being In Itself sick, requires skilfully applied\nremedies.\"\n\nBut in just and sure cases one or two explanations derived from the\nsources correct all things that seem to offend.  This occurs also in\nthis case of ours.  For the rule which I have just recited, explains\nall the passages that are cited concerning the Law and works [namely,\nthat without Christ the Law cannot be truly observed, and although\nexternal works may be performed, still the person doing them does not\nplease God outside of Christ].  For we acknowledge that Scripture\nteaches in some places the Law, and in other places the Gospel, or\nthe gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ's sake.\nBut our adversaries absolutely abolish the free promise when they\ndeny that faith justifies, and teach that for the sake of love and of\nour works we receive remission of sins and reconciliation.  If the\nremission of sins depends upon the condition of our works, it is\naltogether uncertain.  [For we can never be certain whether we do\nenough works, or whether our works are sufficiently holy and pure.\nThus, too, the forgiveness of sins is made uncertain, and the promise\nof God perishes, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 14: The promise is made of\nnone effect, and everything is rendered uncertain.] Therefore the\npromise will be abolished.  Hence we refer godly minds to the\nconsideration of the promises, and we teach concerning the free\nremission of sins and concerning reconciliation, which occurs through\nfaith in Christ.  Afterwards we add also the doctrine of the Law.\n[Not that by the Law we merit the remission of sins, or that for the\nsake of the Law we are accepted with God, but because God requires\ngood works.] And it is necessary to divide these things aright, as\nPaul says, 2 Tim. 2, 15. We must see what Scripture ascribes to the\nLaw, and what to the promises.  For it praises works in such a way as\nnot to remove the free promise [as to place the promise of God and\nthe true treasure, Christ, a thousand leagues above it].\n\nFor good works are to be done on account of God's command, likewise\nfor the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2, 10: We are His\nworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on account\nof confession and giving of thanks.  For these reasons good works\nought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in the\nflesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of the\nHoly Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account of\nChrist, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining to\nthe government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before this\nworld.  For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil,\nand, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to the\nkingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness,\ndeclares His power.  The dangers, labors, and sermons of the Apostle\nPaul, of Athanasius, Augustine, and the like, who taught the churches,\nare holy works, are true sacrifices acceptable to God, are contests\nof Christ through which He repressed the devil, and drove him from\nthose who believed.  David's labors, in waging wars and in his home\ngovernment, are holy works, are true sacrifices, are contests of God,\ndefending the people who had the Word of God against the devil, in\norder that the knowledge of God might not be entirely extinguished on\nearth.  We think thus also concerning every good work in the humblest\ncallings and in private affairs.  Through these works Christ\ncelebrates His victory over the devil, just as the distribution of\nalms by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 16, 1, was a holy work and a\nsacrifice and contest of Christ against the devil, who labors that\nnothing may be done for the praise of God.  To disparage such works,\nthe confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications\nof the flesh would be indeed to disparage the outward government of\nChrist's kingdom among men.  Here also we add something concerning\nrewards and merits.  We teach that rewards have been offered and\npromised to the works of believers.  We teach that good works are\nmeritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or\njustification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other\nrewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life\nbecause Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own\nreward, according to his own labor.  There will, therefore, be\ndifferent rewards according to different labors.  But the remission\nof sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and is\noffered freely to all who believe that for Christ's sake their sins\nare remitted.  Therefore the remission of sins and justification are\nreceived only by faith, and not on account of any works, as is\nevident in the terrors of conscience, because none of our works can\nbe opposed to God's wrath, as Paul clearly says, Rom. 5, 1: Being\njustified by faith, toe have peace with God through our Lord Jesus\nChrist, by whom also we have access by faith, etc. But because faith\nmakes sons of God, it also makes coheirs with Christ.  Therefore,\nbecause by our works we do not merit justification, through which we\nare made sons of God, and coheirs with Christ, we do not by our works\nmerit eternal life; for faith obtains this, because faith justifies\nus and has a reconciled God.  But eternal life is due the justified,\naccording to the passage Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He also\nglorified.  Paul, Eph. 6, 2, commends to us the commandment\nconcerning honoring parents, by mention of the reward which is added\nto that commandment where he does not mean that obedience to parents\njustifies us before God, but that, when it occurs in those who have\nbeen justified, it merits other great rewards.  Yet God exercises His\nsaints variously, and often defers the rewards of the righteousness\nof works in order that they may learn not to trust in their own\nrighteousness, and may learn to seek the will of God rather than the\nrewards, as appears in Job, in Christ, and other saints.  And of this,\nmany psalms teach us, which console us against the happiness of the\nwicked, as Ps. 37, 1: Neither be thou envious.  And Christ says, Matt.\n5, 10: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;\nfor theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  By these praises of good works,\nbelievers are undoubtedly moved to do good works.  Meanwhile, the\ndoctrine of repentance is also proclaimed against the godless, whose\nworks are wicked; and the wrath of God is displayed, which He has\nthreatened all who do not repent.  We therefore praise and require\ngood works, and show many reasons why they ought to be done.\n\nThus of works Paul also teaches when he says, Rom. 4, 9 sq., that\nAbraham received circumcision, not in order that by this work he\nmight be justified; for by faith he had already attained it that he\nwas accounted righteous.  But circumcision was added in order that he\nmight have in his body a written sign, admonished by which he might\nexercise faith, and by which also he might confess his faith before\nothers, and by his testimony might invite others to believe.  By\nfaith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice, Heb. 11, 4.\nBecause, therefore, he was just by faith, the sacrifice which he made\nwas pleasing to God, not that by this work he merited the remission\nof sins and grace, but that he exercised his faith and showed it to\nothers, in order to invite them to believe.\n\nAlthough in this way good works ought to follow faith, men who cannot\nbelieve and be sure that for Christ's sake they are freely forgiven,\nand that freely for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God, employ\nworks far otherwise.  When they see the works of saints, they judge\nin a human manner that saints have merited the remission of sins and\ngrace through these works.  Accordingly, they imitate them, and think\nthat through similar works they merit the remission of sins and grace;\nthey think that through these works they appease the wrath of God,\nand attain that for the sake of these works they are accounted\nrighteous.  This godless opinion concerning works we condemn.  In the\nfirst place, because it obscures the glory of Christ when men offer\nto God these works as a price and propitiation.  This honor, due to\nChrist alone, is ascribed to our works.  Secondly, they nevertheless\ndo not find, in these works, peace of conscience, but in true terrors,\nheaping up works upon works, they at length despair because they\nfind no work sufficiently pure [sufficiently important and precious\nto propitiate God, to obtain with certainty eternal life, in a word,\nto tranquilize and pacify the conscience].  The Law always accuses,\nand produces wrath.  Thirdly, such persons never attain the knowledge\nof God [nor of His will]; for, as in anger they flee from God, who\njudges and afflicts them, they never believe that they are heard.\nBut faith manifests the presence of God, since it is certain that God\nfreely forgives and hears us.\n\nMoreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed in\nthe world [sticks to the world quite tightly].  The heathen had\nsacrifices, derived from the fathers.  They imitated their works.\nTheir faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were a\npropitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled to\nthem.  The people in the law [the Israelites] imitated sacrifices\nwith the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God,\nso to say, _ex opere operato_.  We see here how earnestly the\nprophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50, 8: I will not reprove thee for\nthy sacrifices, and Jer. 7, 22: I spake not unto your fathers\nconcerning burnt offerings.  Such passages condemn not works, which\nGod certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government,\nbut they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thought\nthat by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and thus cast\naway faith.  And because no works pacify the conscience, new works,\nin addition to God's commands, were from time to time devised [the\nhypocrites nevertheless used to invent one work after another, one\nsacrifice after another, by a blind guess and in reckless wantonness,\nand all this without the word and command of God, with wicked\nconscience as we have seen in the Papacy].  The people of Israel had\nseen the prophets sacrificing on high places [and in groves].\nBesides, the examples of the saints very greatly move the minds of\nthose, hoping by similar works to obtain grace just as these saints\nobtained it.  [But the saints believed.] Wherefore the people began,\nwith remarkable zeal, to imitate this work, in order that by such a\nwork [they might appease the wrath of God] they might merit remission\nof sins, grace, and righteousness.  But the prophets had been\nsacrificing on high places, not that by these works they might merit\nthe remission of sins and grace, but because on these places they\ntaught, and, accordingly, presented there a testimony of their faith.\nThe people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son.  Wherefore\nthey also, in order to appease God by a most cruel and difficult work,\nput to death their sons.  But Abraham did not sacrifice his son with\nthe opinion that this work was a price and propitiatory work for the\nsake of which he was accounted righteous.  Thus in the Church the\nLord's Supper was instituted that by remembrance of the promises of\nChrist, of which we are admonished in this sign, faith might be\nstrengthened in us, and we might publicly confess our faith, and\nproclaim the benefits of Christ, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As\noften as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's\ndeath, etc. But our adversaries contend that the mass is a work that\njustifies us _ex opere operato_, and removes the guilt and liability\nto punishment in those for whom it is celebrated, for thus writes\nGabriel.\n\nAnthony, Bernard, Dominicus, Franciscus, and other holy Fathers\nselected a certain kind of life either for the sake of study [of more\nreadily reading the Holy Scriptures] or other useful exercises.  In\nthe mean time they believed that by faith they were accounted\nrighteous for Christ's sake, and that God was gracious to them, not\non account of those exercises of their own.  But the multitude since\nthen has imitated not the faith of the Fathers, but their example\nwithout faith, in order that by such works they might merit the\nremission of sins, grace, and righteousness: they did not believe\nthat they received these freely on account of Christ as Propitiator.\n[Thus the human mind always exalts works too highly, and puts them in\nthe wrong place.  And this error the Gospel reproves which teaches\nthat men are accounted righteous not for the sake of the Law, but for\nthe sake of Christ alone.  Christ, however, is apprehended by faith\nalone; wherefore we are accounted righteous by faith alone for\nChrist's sake.] Thus the world judges of all works that they are a\npropitiation by which God is appeased; that they are a price because\nof which we are accounted righteous.  It does not believe that Christ\nis Propitiator; it does not believe that by faith we freely attain\nthat we are accounted righteous for Christ's sake.  And, nevertheless,\nsince works cannot pacify the conscience, others are continually\nchosen, new rites are performed, new vows made, and new orders of\nmonks formed beyond the command of God, in order that some great work\nmay be sought which may be set against the wrath and judgment of God.\nContrary to Scripture, the adversaries uphold these godless opinions\nconcerning works.  But to ascribe to our works these things, namely,\nthat they are a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins\nand grace that for the sake of these and not by faith for the sake of\nChrist as Propitiator we are accounted righteous before God, what\nelse is this than to deny Christ the honor of Mediator and\nPropitiator?  Although, therefore, we believe and teach that good\nworks must necessarily be done (for the inchoate fulfilling of the\nLaw ought to follow faith), nevertheless we give to Christ His own\nhonor.  We believe and teach that by faith, for Christ's sake, we are\naccounted righteous before God, that we are not accounted righteous\nbecause of works without Christ as Mediator, that by works we do not\nmerit the remission of sins, grace, and righteousness, that we cannot\nset our works against the wrath and justice of God, that works cannot\novercome the terrors of sin, but that the terrors of sin are overcome\nby faith alone, that only Christ the Mediator is to be presented by\nfaith against the wrath and judgment of God.  If any one think\ndifferently, he does not give Christ due honor, who has been set\nforth that He might be a Propitiator, that through Him we might have\naccess to the Father.  We are speaking now of the righteousness\nthrough which we treat with God not with men, but by which we\napprehend grace and peace of conscience.  Conscience however, cannot\nbe pacified before God, unless by faith alone, which is certain that\nGod for Christ's sake is reconciled to us, according to Rom. 5, 1:\nBeing justified by faith, we have peace because justification is only\na matter freely promised for Christ's sake, and therefore is always\nreceived before God by faith alone.\n\nNow, then, we will reply to those passages which the adversaries cite,\nin order to prove that we are justified by love and works.  From 1\nCor. 13, 2 they cite: Though I have all faith, etc., and hove not\ncharity, I am nothing.  And here they triumph greatly.  Paul\ntestifies to the entire Church, they say, that faith alone does not\njustify.  But a reply is easy after we have shown above what we hold\nconcerning love and works.  This passage of Paul requires love.  We\nalso require this.  For we have said above that renewal and the\ninchoate fulfilling of the Law must exist in us, according to Jer. 31,\n33: 1 will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their\nhearts.  If any one should cast away love, even though he have great\nfaith, yet he does not retain it, for he does not retain the Holy\nGhost [he becomes cold and is now again fleshly, without Spirit and\nfaith; for the Holy Ghost is not where Christian love and other\nfruits of the Spirit are not].  Nor indeed does Paul in this passage\ntreat of the mode of justification, but he writes to those who, after\nthey had been justified, should be urged to bring forth good fruits\nlest they might lose the Holy Ghost.  The adversaries, furthermore,\ntreat the matter preposterously: they cite this one passage, in which\nPaul teaches concerning fruits, they omit very many other passages,\nin which in a regular order he discusses the mode of justification.\nBesides, they always add a correction to the other passages, which\ntreat of faith, namely, that they ought to be understood as applying\nto _fides formata_.  Here they add no correction that there is also\nneed of the faith that holds that we are accounted righteous for the\nsake of Christ as Propitiator.  Thus the adversaries exclude Christ\nfrom justification, and teach only a righteousness of the Law.  But\nlet us return to Paul.  No one can infer anything more from this text\nthan that love is necessary.  This we confess.  So also not to commit\ntheft is necessary.  But the reasoning will not be correct if some\none would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: \"Not to\ncommit theft is necessary.  Therefore, not to commit theft justifies.\"\nBecause justification is not the approval of a certain work, but of\nthe entire person.  Hence this passage from Paul does not harm us;\nonly the adversaries must not in imagination add to it whatever they\nplease.  For he does not say that love justifies, but: [\"And if I\nhave not love\"] \"I am nothing,\" namely, that faith, however great it\nmay have been, is extinguished.  He does not say that love overcomes\nthe terrors of sin and of death that we can set our love against the\nwrath and judgment of God, that our love satisfies God's Law, that\nwithout Christ as Propitiator we have access, by our love, to God,\nthat by our love we receive the promised remission of sins.  Paul\nsays nothing of this.  He does not, therefore, think that love\njustifies, because we are justified only when we apprehend Christ as\nPropitiator, and believe that for Christ's sake God is reconciled to\nus.  Neither is justification even to be dreamed of with the omission\nof Christ as Propitiator.  If there be no need of Christ, if by our\nlove we can overcome death, if by our love, without Christ as\nPropitiator' we have access to God, then let our adversaries remove\nthe promise concerning Christ, then let them abolish the Gospel\n[which teaches that we have access to God through Christ as\nPropitiator, and that we are accepted not for the sake of our\nfulfilling of the Law, but for Christ's sake].  The adversaries\ncorrupt very many passages, because they bring to them their own\nopinions, and do not derive the meaning from the passages themselves.\nFor what difficulty is there in this passage if we remove the\ninterpretation which the adversaries, who do not understand what\njustification is or how it occurs [what faith is, what Christ is, or\nhow a man is justified before God], out of their own mind attach to\nit?  The Corinthians, being justified before, had received many\nexcellent gifts.  In the beginning they glowed with zeal, just as is\ngenerally the case.  Then dissensions [factions and sects] began to\narise among them as Paul indicates; they began to dislike good\nteachers.  Accordingly, Paul reproves them, recalling them [to unity\nand] to offices of love.  Although these are necessary, yet it would\nbe foolish to imagine that works of the Second Table, through which\nwe have to do with man and not properly with God, justify us.  But in\njustification we have to treat with God; His wrath must be appeased,\nand conscience must be pacified with respect to God.  None of these\noccur through the works of the Second Table [by love, but only by\nfaith, which apprehends Christ and the promise of God.  However, it\nis true that losing love involves losing the Spirit and faith.  And\nthus Paul says: If I have not love, I am nothing.  But he does not\nadd the affirmative statement, that love justifies in the sight of\nGod].\n\nBut they object that love is preferred to faith and hope.  For Paul\nsays, 1 Cor. 13, 13: The greatest of these is charity.  Now, it is\nreasonable that the greatest and chief virtue should justify,\nalthough Paul, in this passage, properly speaks of love towards one's\nneighbor, and indicates that love is the greatest, because it has\nmost fruits.  Faith and hope have to do only with God; but love has\ninfinite offices externally towards men.  [Love goes forth upon earth\namong the people, and does much good, by consoling, teaching,\ninstructing, helping, counseling privately and publicly.]\nNevertheless, let us, indeed, grant to the adversaries that love\ntowards God and our neighbor is the greatest virtue, because the\nchief commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God Matt. 22,\n37. But how will they infer thence that love justifies?  The\ngreatest virtue, they say, justifies.  By no means.  [It would be\ntrue if we had a gracious God because of our virtue.  Now, it was\nproven above that we are accepted and justified for Christ's sake,\nnot because of our virtue, for our virtue is impure.] For just as\neven the greatest or first Law does not justify, so also the greatest\nvirtue of the Law does not justify.  [For, as the Law and virtue is\nhigher, and our ability to do the same proportionately lower, we are\nnot righteous because of love.] But that virtue justifies which\napprehends Christ, which communicates to us Christ's merits, by which\nwe receive grace and peace from God.  But this virtue is faith.  For\nas it has been often said, faith is not only knowledge, but much\nrather willing to receive or apprehend those things which are offered\nin the promise concerning Christ.  Moreover this obedience towards\nGod, namely, to wish to receive the offered promise, is no less a\ndivine service, _latreia_, than is love.  God wishes us to believe\nHim, and to receive from Him blessings, and this He declares to be\ntrue divine service.\n\nBut the adversaries ascribe justification to love because they\neverywhere teach and require the righteousness of the Law.  For we\ncannot deny that love is the highest work of the Law.  And human\nwisdom gazes at the Law, and seeks in it justification.  Accordingly,\nalso the scholastic doctors, great and talented men, proclaim this as\nthe highest work of the Law, and ascribe to this work justification.\nBut deceived by human wisdom, they did not look upon the uncovered,\nbut upon the veiled face of Moses, just as the Pharisees,\nphilosophers, Mahometans.  But we preach the foolishness of the\nGospel, in which another righteousness is revealed, namely, that for\nthe sake of Christ, as Propitiator, we are accounted righteous, when\nwe believe that for Christ's sake God has been reconciled to us.\nNeither are we ignorant how far distant this doctrine is from the\njudgment of reason and of the Law.  Nor are we ignorant that the\ndoctrine of the Law concerning love makes a much greater show; for it\nis wisdom.  But we are not ashamed of the foolishness of the Gospel.\nFor the sake of Christ's glory we defend this, and beseech Christ, by\nHis Holy Ghost, to aid us that we may be able to make this clear and\nmanifest.\n\nThe adversaries, in the Confutation, have also cited against us Col.\n3, 14: Charity, which is the bond of perfectness.  From this they\ninfer that love justifies because it renders men perfect.  Although a\nreply concerning perfection could here be made in many ways, yet we\nwill simply recite the meaning of Paul.  It is certain that Paul\nspoke of love towards one's neighbor.  Neither must we indeed think\nthat Paul would ascribe either justification or perfection to the\nworks of the Second Table, rather than to those of the First.  And if\nlove render men perfect, there will then be no need of Christ as\nPropitiator, [However, Paul teaches in all places that we are\naccepted on account of Christ, and not on account of our love, or our\nworks, or of the Law; for no saint (as was stated before) perfectly\nfulfils the Law.  Therefore since he in all places writes and teaches\nthat in this life there is no perfection in our works, it is not to\nbe thought that he speaks here of personal perfection.] for faith\napprehends Christ only as Propitiator.  This, however, is far distant\nfrom the meaning of Paul, who never suffers Christ to be excluded as\nPropitiator.  Therefore he speaks not of personal perfection, but of\nthe integrity common to the Church [concerning the unity of the\nChurch and the word which they interpret as perfection means nothing\nelse than to be not rent].  For on this account he says that love is\na bond or connection, to signify that he speaks of the binding and\njoining together, with each other, of the many members of the Church.\nFor just as in all families and in all states concord should be\nnourished by mutual offices, and tranquillity cannot be retained\nunless men overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves; so\nPaul commands that there should be love in the Church in order that\nit may preserve concord, bear with the harsher manners of brethren as\nthere is need, overlook certain less serious mistakes, lest the\nChurch fly apart into various schisms, and enmities and factions and\nheresies arise from the schisms.\n\nFor concord must necessarily he rent asunder whenever either the\nbishops impose [without cause] upon the people heavier burdens, or\nhave no respect to weakness in the people.  And dissensions arise\nwhen the people judge too severely [quickly censure and criticize]\nconcerning the conduct [walk and life] of teachers [bishops or\npreachers], or despise the teachers because of certain less serious\nfaults; for then both another kind of doctrine and other teachers are\nsought after.  On the other hand, perfection, i.e., the integrity of\nthe Church, is preserved, when the strong bear with the weak, when\nthe people take in good part some faults in the conduct of their\nteachers [have patience also with their preachers], when the bishops\nmake some allowances for the weakness of the people [know how to\nexercise forbearance to the people, according to circumstances, with\nrespect to all kinds of weaknesses and faults].  Of these precepts of\nequity the books of all the wise are full, namely, that in every day\nlife we should make many allowances mutually for the sake of common\ntranquillity.  And of this Paul frequently teaches both here and\nelsewhere.  Wherefore the adversaries argue indiscreetly from the\nterm \"perfection\" that love justifies, while Paul speaks of common\nintegrity and tranquillity.  And thus Ambrose interprets this passage:\nJust as a building is said to be perfect or entire when all its\nparts are fitly joined together with one another.  Moreover, it is\ndisgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much concerning love\nwhile they nowhere exhibit it.  What are they now doing?  They are\nrending asunder churches, they are writing laws in blood, and are\nproposing to the most clement prince, the Emperor, that these should\nbe promulgated; they are slaughtering priests and other good men, if\nany one have [even] slightly intimated that he does not entirely\napprove some manifest abuse.  [They wish all dead who say a single\nword against their godless doctrine.] These things are not consistent\nwith those declamations of love, which if the adversaries would\nfollow, the churches would be tranquil and the state have peace.  For\nthese tumults would be quieted if the adversaries would not insist\nwith too much bitterness [from sheer vengeful spite and pharisaical\nenvy, against the truth which they have perceived] upon certain\ntraditions, useless for godliness, most of which not even those very\npersons observe who most earnestly defend them.  But they easily\nforgive themselves, and yet do not likewise forgive others, according\nto the passage in the poet: I forgive myself, Maevius said.  But this\nis very far distant from those encomiums of love which they here\nrecite from Paul, nor do they understand the word any more than the\nwalls which give it back.  From Peter they cite also this sentence, 1\nPet. 4, 8: Charity shall cover the multitude of sins.  It is evident\nthat also Peter speaks of love towards one's neighbor, because he\njoins this passage to the precept by which he commands that they\nshould love one another.  Neither could it have come into the mind of\nany apostle that our love overcomes sin and death; that love is the\npropitiation on account of which to the exclusion of Christ as\nMediator, God is reconciled; that love is righteousness without\nChrist as Mediator.  For this love, if there would be any, would be a\nrighteousness of the Law, and not of the Gospel, which promises to us\nreconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, for the sake of\nChrist as Propitiator, the Father has been reconciled, and that the\nmerits of Christ are bestowed upon us.  Peter, accordingly, urges us,\na little before, to come to Christ that we may be built upon Christ.\nAnd he adds, 1 Pet. 2, 4-6: He that believeth on Him shall not be\nconfounded.  When God judges and convicts us, our love does not free\nus from confusion [from our works and lives, we truly suffer shame].\nBut faith in Christ liberates us in these fears, because we know that\nfor Christ's sake we are forgiven.\n\nBesides, this sentence concerning love is derived from Prov. 10,12,\nwhere the antithesis clearly shows how it ought to be understood:\nHatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.  It teaches\nprecisely the same thing as that passage of Paul taken from\nColossians, that if any dissensions would occur, they should be\nmoderated and settled by our equitable and lenient conduct.\nDissensions, it says, increase by means of hatred, as we often see\nthat from the most trifling offenses tragedies arise [from the\nsmallest sparks a great conflagration arises].  Certain trifling\noffenses occurred between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which, if the\none had yielded a very little to the other, civil war would not have\narisen.  But while each indulged his own hatred, from a matter of no\naccount the greatest commotions arose.  And many heresies have arisen\nin the Church only from the hatred of the teachers.  Therefore it\ndoes not refer to a person's own faults, but to the faults of others,\nwhen it says: Charity covereth sins, namely, those of others, and\nthat, too, among men, i.e., even though these offenses occur, yet\nlove overlooks them, forgives, yields, and does not carry all things\nto the extremity of justice.  Peter, therefore, does not mean that\nlove merits in God's sight the remission of sins, that it is a\npropitiation to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, that it\nregenerates and justifies, but that it is not morose, harsh,\nintractable towards men, that it overlooks some mistakes of its\nfriends, that it takes in good part even the harsher manners of\nothers, just as the well-known maxim enjoins: Know, but do rot hate,\nthe manners of a fiend.  Nor was it without design that the apostle\ntaught so frequently concerning this office what the philosophers\ncall epieicheia, leniency.  For this virtue is necessary for\nretaining public harmony [in the Church and the civil government],\nwhich cannot last unless pastors and Churches mutually overlook and\npardon many things [if they want to be extremely particular about\nevery defect, and do not allow many things to flow by without\nnoticing them].\n\nFrom James they cite 2, 24: Ye see, then how by works a man is\njustified, and not by faith alone.  Nor is any other passage supposed\nto be more contrary to our belief.  But the reply is easy and plain.\nIf the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the\nmerits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of\ndisadvantage.  But wherever there is mention of works, the\nadversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of\ngood works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a\npropitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us;\nthat good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death; that good\nworks are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and\nthat they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator.  None of all\nthese things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries\nnevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.\n\nIn the first place, then, we must ponder this, namely, that the\npassage is more against the adversaries than against us.  For the\nadversaries teach that man is justified by love and works.  Of faith,\nby which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing.  Yea\nthey condemn this faith; nor do they condemn it only in sentences and\nwritings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavor\nto exterminate it in the Church.  How much better does James teach,\nwho does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, but\nretains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded as\nPropitiator!  Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of the\nChristian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1, 5: The end of the\ncommandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience,\nand of faith unfeigned.\n\nSecondly, the subject itself declares that here such works are spoken\nof as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living and\nefficacious in the heart.  James, therefore, did not believe that by\ngood works we merit the remission of sins and grace.  For he speaks\nof the works of those who have been justified, who have already been\nreconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins.\nWherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches that\nwe merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by our\nworks we have access to God, without Christ as Propitiator.\n\n\n\n\nPart 8\n\n\nThirdly, James has spoken shortly before concerning regeneration,\nnamely, that it occurs through the Gospel.  For thus he says 1, 18:\nOf His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be\na kind of first-fruits of His creatures.  When he says that we have\nbeen born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born\nagain and justified by faith.  For the promise concerning Christ is\napprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sin\nand of death.  James does not, therefore, think that we are born\nagain by our works.\n\nFrom these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who,\nwhen censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have\nfaith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead\nand living faith.  He says that that is dead which does not bring\nforth good works [and fruits of the Spirit: obedience, patience,\nchastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good\nworks.  Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term\nfaith.  For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the\nhistory concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but\nof faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and\nconsoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy\nGhost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of\ndeath, of sin, etc.].  Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the\nadversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to\nbelieve! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for\nmyself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which\nwe overcome the devil and death.  Just as Paul says to the Colossians,\n2, 12, that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and\novercomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith\nof the operation of God.  Since this faith is a new life, it\nnecessarily produces new movements and works.  [Because it is a new\nlight and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and\nspirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.]\nAccordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such\na faith as is without works.  But when he says that we are justified\nby faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again\nby works.  Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our\nPropitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation.  Nor does he\ndescribe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just\nare, after they have been already justified and regenerated.  [For he\nis speaking of works which should follow faith.  There it is well\nsaid: He who has faith and good works is righteous; not, indeed, on\naccount of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith.  And as a\ngood tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not\nmake the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although\nthey do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first\nbe good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for\nChrist's sake.  The works are too insignificant to render God\ngracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for\nChrist's sake.  Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and\ndoes not say that by our works we merit, etc.] And here to be\njustified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked\nman, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in\nthe passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified.  As,\ntherefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified,\ncontain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe\nconcerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not\nby faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly\npronounced righteous.  For, as we have said, the good works of saints\nare righteous, and please on account of faith.  For James commends\nonly such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of\nAbraham, 2, 21: Faith wrought with his works.  In this sense it is\nsaid: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced\nrighteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good\nfruits which please Him on account of faith, and accordingly, are the\nfulfilment of the Law.  These things, simply spoken, contain nothing\nerroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries who attach to\nthem godless opinions out of their mind.  For it does not follow\nhence that works merit the remission of sins; that works regenerate\nhearts; that works are a propitiation, that works please without\nChrist as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator.\nJames says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, the\nadversaries shamelessly infer from the words of James.\n\nCertain other passages concerning works are also cited against us.\nLuke 6, 37: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.  Is. 58, 7 [9]: Is it\nnot to deal thy bread to the hungry?...Then shalt thou call, and the\nLord will answer.  Dan. 4, 24 [27]: Break off thy sins, by showing\nmercy to the poor.  Matt. 5, 3: Blessed are the poor in spirit; for\ntheirs is the kingdom of heaven; and v. 7: Blessed are the merciful;\nfor they shall obtain mercy.  Even these passages would contain\nnothing contrary to us if the adversaries would not falsely attach\nsomething to them.  For they contain two things: The one is a\npreaching either of the Law or of repentance, which not only convicts\nthose doing wrong, but also enjoins them to do what is right; the\nother is a promise which is added.  But it is not added that sins are\nremitted without faith, or that works themselves are a propitiation.\nMoreover, in the preaching of the Law these two things ought always\nto be understood, namely: First, that the Law cannot be observed\nunless we have been regenerated by faith in Christ, just as Christ\nsays, John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing.  Secondly, and though\nsome external works can certainly be done, this general judgment:\nWithout faith it is impossible to please God, which interprets the\nwhole Law, must be retained: and the Gospel must be retained, that\nthrough Christ we have access to the Father, Heb. 10, 19, Rom. 5, 2.\nFor it is evident that we are not justified by the Law.  Otherwise,\nwhy would there be need of Christ or the Gospel, if the preaching of\nthe Law alone would be sufficient?  Thus in the preaching of\nrepentance, the preaching of the Law, or the Word convicting of sin,\nis not sufficient, because the Law works wrath, and only accuses,\nonly terrifies consciences, because consciences never are at rest,\nunless they hear the voice of God in which the remission of sins is\nclearly promised.  Accordingly, the Gospel must be added, that for\nChrist's sake sins are remitted, and that we obtain remission of sins\nby faith in Christ.  If the adversaries exclude the Gospel of Christ\nfrom the preaching of repentance, they are judged aright to be\nblasphemers against Christ.\n\nTherefore, when Isaiah, 1, 16. 18, preaches repentance: Cease to do\nevil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge\nthe fatherless, plead for the widow.  Come now and let us reason\ntogether, saith the Lord; though your sine be as scarlet, they shall\nbe white as snow, the prophet thus both exhorts to repentance, and\nadds the promise.  But it would be foolish to consider in such a\nsentence only the words: Relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless.\nFor he says in the beginning: Cease to do evil, where he censures\nimpiety of heart and requires faith.  Neither does the prophet say\nthat through the works: Relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless,\nthey can merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, but he\ncommands such works as are necessary in the new life.  Yet, in the\nmean time, he means that remission of sins is received by faith, and\naccordingly the promise is added.  Thus we must understand all\nsimilar passages.  Christ preaches repentance when He says: Forgive,\nand He adds the promise: And ye shall be forgiven, Luke 6, 37. Nor,\nindeed, does He say this, namely, that, when we forgive, by this work\nof ours we merit the remission of sins _ex opere operato_, as they\nterm it, but He requires a new life, which certainly is necessary.\nYet, in the mean time He means that remission of sins is received by\nfaith.  Thus, when Isaiah says, 58, 7: Deal thy bread to the hungry,\nhe requires a new life.  Nor does the prophet speak of this work\nalone, but, as the text indicates, of the entire repentance; yet, in\nthe mean time, he intends that remission of sins is received by faith.\nFor the position is sure, and none of the gates of hell can\noverthrow it, that in the preaching of repentance the preaching of\nthe Law is not sufficient, because the Law works wrath and always\naccuses.  But the preaching of the Gospel should be added, namely,\nthat in this way remission of sins is granted us, if we believe that\nsins are remitted us for Christ's sake.  Otherwise, why would there\nbe need of the Gospel, why would there be need of Christ?  This\nbelief ought always to be in view, in order that it may be opposed to\nthose who, Christ being cast aside and the Gospel being blotted out,\nwickedly distort the Scriptures to the human opinions, that by our\nworks we purchase remission of sins.\n\nThus also in the sermon of Daniel, 4, 24, faith is required.  [The\nwords of the prophet which were full of faith and spirit, we must not\nregard as heathenish as those of Aristotle or any other heathen.\nAristotle also admonished Alexander that he should not use his power\nfor his own wantonness, but for the improvement of countries and men.\nThis was written correctly and well; concerning the office of king\nnothing better can be preached or written.  But Daniel is speaking to\nhis king, not only concerning his office as king, but concerning\nrepentance, the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to God, and\nconcerning sublime, great, spiritual subjects, which far transcend\nhuman thoughts and works.] For Daniel did not mean that the king\nshould only bestow alms [which even a hypocrite can do], but embraces\nrepentance when he says: Break off [Redeem, Vulg.] thy iniquities by\nshowing mercy to the poor, i.e. break off thy sins by a change of\nheart and works.  But here also faith is required.  And Daniel\nproclaims to him many things concerning the worship of the only God,\nthe God of Israel, and converts the king not only to bestow alms, but\nmuch more to faith.  For we have the excellent confession of the king\nconcerning the God of Israel: There is no other God that can deliver\nafter this sort Dan. 3, 29. Therefore, in the sermon of Daniel there\nare two parts.  The one part is that which gives commandment\nconcerning the new life and the works of the new life.  The other\npart is, that Daniel promises to the king the remission of sins.\n[Now, where there is a promise, faith is required.  For the promise\ncannot be received in any other way than by the heart's relying on\nsuch word of God, and not regarding its own worthiness or\nunworthiness.  Accordingly, Daniel also demands faith: for thus the\npromise reads: There will be healing for thy offenses.] And this\npromise of the remission of sins is not a preaching of the Law, but a\ntruly prophetical and evangelical voice, of which Daniel certainly\nmeant that it should be received in faith.  For Daniel knew that the\nremission of sins in Christ was promised not only to the Israelites,\nbut also to all nations.  Otherwise he could not have promised to the\nking the remission of sins.  For it is not in the power of man\nespecially amid the terrors of sin, to assert without a sure word of\nGod concerning God's will, that He ceases to be angry.  And the words\nof Daniel speak in his own language still more clearly of repentance\nand still more clearly bring out the promise.  Redeem thy sins by\nrighteousness and thy iniquities by favors toward the poor.  These\nwords teach concerning the whole of repentance.  [It is as much as to\nsay: Amend your life!  And it is true, when we amend our lives, we\nbecome rid of sin.] For they direct him to become righteous, then to\ndo good works, to defend the miserable against injustice, as was the\nduty of a king.  But righteousness is faith in the heart.  Moreover,\nsins are redeemed by repentance, i.e. the obligation or guilt is\nremoved, because God forgives those who repent, as it is written in\nEzek. 18, 21. 22. Nor are we to infer from this that He forgives on\naccount of works that follow, on account of alms, but on account of\nHis promise He forgives those who apprehend His promise.  Neither do\nany apprehend His promise, except those who truly believe, and by\nfaith overcome sin and death.  These, being regenerated, ought to\nbring forth fruits worthy of repentance, just as John says, Matt. 3,\n8. The promise, therefore, was added: So, there will be healing for\nthy offenses, Dan. 4, 24. [Daniel does not only demand works, but\nsays: Redeem thy sins by righteousness.  Now, everybody knows that in\nScripture righteousness does not mean only external works, but\nembraces faith, as Paul says: _Iustus ex fide vivet_?  The just shall\nlive by his faith, Heb. 10, 38. Hence, Daniel first demands faith\nwhen he mentions righteousness and says: Redeem thy sins by\nrighteousness, that is, by faith toward God, by which thou art made\nrighteous.  In addition to this do good works, administer your office,\ndo not be a tyrant, but see that your government be profitable to\nyour country and people, preserve peace, and protect the poor against\nunjust force.  These are princely alms.] Jerome here added a particle\nexpressing doubt, that is beside the matter, and in his commentaries\ncontends much more unwisely that the remission of sins is uncertain.\nBut let us remember that the Gospel gives a sure promise of the\nremission of sins.  And to deny that there must be a sure promise of\nthe remission of sins would completely abolish the Gospel.  Let us\ntherefore dismiss Jerome concerning this passage.  Although the\npromise is displayed even in the word redeem.  For it signifies that\nthe remission of sins is possible that sins can be redeemed, i.e.,\nthat their obligation or guilt can be removed, or the wrath of God\nappeased.  But our adversaries, overlooking the promises, everywhere,\nconsider only the precepts, and attach falsely the human opinion that\nremission occurs on account of works, although the text does not say\nthis, but much rather requires faith.  For wherever a promise is,\nthere faith is required.  For a promise cannot be received unless by\nfaith.  [The same answer must also be given in reference to the\npassage from the Gospel: Forgive, and you will be forgiven.  For this\nis just such a doctrine of repentance.  The first part in this\npassage demands amendment of life and good works, the other part adds\nthe promise.  Nor are we to infer from this that our forgiving merits\nfor us _ex opere operato_ remission of sin.  For that is not what\nChrist says, but as in other sacraments Christ has attached the\npromise to an external sign, so He attaches the promise of the\nforgiveness of sin in this place to external good works.  And as in\nthe Lord's Supper we do not obtain forgiveness of sin without faith,\n_ex opere operato_, so neither in this when we forgive.  For, our\nforgiving is not a good work, except it is performed by a person\nwhose sins have been previously forgiven by God in Christ.  If,\ntherefore, our forgiving is to please God, it must follow after the\nforgiveness which God extends to us.  For, as a rule, Christ combines\nthese two, the Law and the Gospel, both faith and good works, in\norder to indicate that, where good works do not follow, there is no\nfaith either that we may have external marks, which remind us of the\nGospel and the forgiveness of sin, for our comfort and that thus our\nfaith may be exercised in many ways.  In this manner we are to\nunderstand such passages, otherwise they would directly contradict\nthe entire Gospel, and our beggarly works would be put in the place\nof Christ, who alone is to be the propitiation, which no man is by\nany means to despise.  Again, if these passages were to be understood\nas relating to works, the remission of sins would be quite uncertain;\nfor it would rest on a poor foundation, on our miserable works.]\n\nBut works become conspicuous among men.  Human reason naturally\nadmires these, and because it sees only works, and does not\nunderstand or consider faith, it dreams accordingly that these works\nmerit remission of sins and justify.  This opinion of the Law inheres\nby nature in men's minds; neither can it be expelled, unless when we\nare divinely taught.  But the mind must be recalled from such carnal\nopinions to the Word of God.  We see that the Gospel and the promise\nconcerning Christ have been laid before us.  When, therefore, the Law\nis preached, when works are enjoined, we should not spurn the promise\nconcerning Christ.  But the latter must first be apprehended, in\norder that we may be able to produce good works, and our works may\nplease God, as Christ says, John 16; 5: With out Me ye can do nothing.\nTherefore, if Daniel would have used such words as these: \"Redeem\nyour sins by repentance,\" the adversaries would take no notice of\nthis passage.  Now, since he has actually expressed this thought in\napparently other words, the adversaries distort his words to the\ninjury of the doctrine of grace and faith, although Daniel meant most\nespecially to include faith.  Thus, therefore, we reply to the words\nof Daniel, that, inasmuch as he is preaching repentance, he is\nteaching not only of works, but also of faith, as the narrative\nitself in the context testifies.  Secondly, because Daniel clearly\npresents the promise, he necessarily requires faith which believes\nthat sins are freely remitted by God.  Although, therefore, in\nrepentance he mentions works, yet Daniel does not say that by these\nworks we merit remission of sins.  For Daniel speaks not only of the\nremission of the punishment; because remission of the punishment is\nsought for in vain unless the heart first receive the remission of\nguilt.  Besides, if the adversaries understand Daniel as speaking\nonly of the remission of punishment, this passage will prove nothing\nagainst us, because it will thus be necessary for even them to\nconfess that the remission of sin and free justification precede.\nAfterwards even we concede that the punishments by which we are\nchastised, are mitigated by our prayers and good works, and finally\nby our entire repentance, according to 1 Cor. 11, 31: For if we would\njudge ourselves, we should not be judged.  And Jer. 15, 19: If thou\nreturn, then will I bring thee again.  And Zech. 1, 3: Turn ye unto\nMe, and I will turn unto you.  And Ps. 50, 15: Call upon Me in the\nday of trouble.\n\nLet us, therefore, in all our encomiums upon works and in the\npreaching of the Law retain this rule: that the Law is not observed\nwithout Christ.  As He Himself has said: Without Me ye can do nothing.\nLikewise that: Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb.\n11, 6. For it is very certain that the doctrine of the Law is not\nintended to remove the Gospel, and to remove Christ as Propitiator.\nAnd let the Pharisees, our adversaries, be cursed, who so interpret\nthe Law as to ascribe the glory of Christ to works namely, that they\nare a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins.  It\nfollows, therefore, that works are always thus praised, namely, that\nthey are pleasing on account of faith, as works do not please without\nChrist as Propitiator.  By Him we have access to God, Rom. 5, 2, not\nby works, without Christ as Mediator.  Therefore, when it is said,\nMatt. 19, 17: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments, we\nmust believe that without Christ the commandments are not kept, and\nwithout Him cannot please.  Thus in the Decalog itself, in the First\nCommandment Ex. 20, 6: Showing mercy unto thousands of them that love\nMe and keep My commandments, the most liberal promise of the Law is\nadded.  But this Law is not observed without Christ.  For it always\naccuses the conscience which does not satisfy the Law, and therefore\nin terror, flies from the judgment and punishment of the Law.\nBecause the Law worketh wrath, Rom. 4, 15. Man observes the Law,\nhowever, when he hears that for Christ's sake God is reconciled to us,\neven though we cannot satisfy the Law.  When, by this faith, Christ\nis apprehended as Mediator, the heart finds rest, and begins to love\nGod and observe the Law, and knows that now, because of Christ as\nMediator, it is pleasing to God, even though the inchoate fulfilling\nof the Law be far from perfection and be very impure.  Thus we must\njudge also concerning the preaching of repentance.  For although in\nthe doctrine of repentance the scholastics have said nothing at all\nconcerning faith, yet we think that none of our adversaries is so mad\nas to deny that absolution is a voice of the Gospel.  And absolution\nought to be received by faith, in order that it may cheer the\nterrified conscience.\n\nTherefore the doctrine of repentance, because it not only commands\nnew works, but also promises the remission of sins, necessarily\nrequires faith.  For the remission of sins is not received unless by\nfaith.  Therefore, in those passages that refer to repentance, we\nshould always understand that not only works, but also faith is\nrequired, as in Matt. 6, 14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses,\nyour heavenly Father will also forgive you.  Here a work is required,\nand the promise of the remission of sins is added which does not\noccur on account of the work, but through faith, on account of Christ.\nJust as Scripture testifies in many passages: Acts 10, 43: To Him\ngive all the prophets witness that through His name, whosoever\nbelieveth in Him, shall receive remission of sins; and 1 John 2, 12:\nYour sins are forgiven you for His name's sake; Eph. 1, 7: In whom we\nhave redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins.  Although\nwhat need is there to recite testimonies?  This is the very voice\npeculiar to the Gospel, namely, that for Christ's sake, and not for\nthe sake of our works, we obtain by faith remission of sins.  Our\nadversaries endeavor to suppress this voice of the Gospel by means of\ndistorted passages which contain the doctrine of the Law, or of works.\nFor it is true that in the doctrine of repentance works are\nrequired, because certainly a new life is required.  But here the\nadversaries wrongly add that by such works we merit the remission of\nsins, or justification.  And yet Christ often connects the promise of\nthe remission of sins to good works not because He means that good\nworks are a propitiation, for they follow reconciliation; but for two\nreasons.  One is, because good fruits must necessarily follow.\nTherefore He reminds us that, if good fruits do not follow the\nrepentance is hypocritical and feigned.  The other reason is, because\nwe have need of external signs of so great a promise, because a\nconscience full of fear has need of manifold consolation.  As,\ntherefore, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs that continually\nadmonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the more\nfirmly that their sins are forgiven, so the same promise is written\nand portrayed in good works, in order that these works may admonish\nus to believe the more firmly.  And those who produce no good works\ndo not excite themselves to believe, but despise these promises.  The\ngodly on the other hand, embrace them, and rejoice that they have the\nsigns and testimonies of so great a promise.  Accordingly, they\nexercise themselves in these signs and testimonies.  Just as,\ntherefore, the Lord's Supper does not justify us _ex opere operato_,\nwithout faith, so alms do not justify us without faith, _ex opere\noperato_.\n\nSo also the address of Tobias, 4, 11, ought to be received: Alms free\nfrom every sin and from death.  We will not say that this is\nhyperbole, although it ought thus to be received, so as not to\ndetract from the praise of Christ, whose prerogative it is to free\nfrom sin and death.  But we must come back to the rule that without\nChrist the doctrine of the Law is of no profit.  Therefore those alms\nplease God which follow reconciliation or justification, and not\nthose which precede.  Therefore they free from sin and death, not _ex\nopere operato_, but, as we have said above concerning repentance,\nthat we ought to embrace faith and its fruits, so here we must say\nconcerning alms that this entire newness of life saves [that they\nplease God because they occur in believers].  Alms also are the\nexercises of faith, which receives the remission of sins and\novercomes death, while it exercises itself more and more, and in\nthese exercises receives strength.  We grant also this, that alms\nmerit many favors from God [but they cannot overcome death, hell, the\ndevil, sins, and give the conscience peace (for this must occur alone\nthrough faith in Christ)], mitigate punishments, and that they merit\nour defense in the dangers of sins and of death, as we have said a\nlittle before concerning the entire repentance.  [This is the simple\nmeaning, which agrees also with other passages of Scripture.  For\nwherever in the Scriptures good works are praised, we must always\nunderstand them according to the rule of Paul, that the Law and works\nmust not be elevated above Christ, but that Christ and faith are as\nfar above all works as the heavens are above the earth.] And the\naddress of Tobias, regarded as a whole shows that faith is required\nbefore alms, 4, 5: Be mindful of the Lord, thy God, all thy days And\nafterwards, v. 19. Bless the Lord, thy God, always, and desire of Him\nthat thy ways be directed.  This, however, belongs properly to that\nfaith of which we speak, which believes that God is reconciled to it\nbecause of His mercy, and which wishes to be justified, sanctified,\nand governed by God.  But our adversaries, charming men, pick out\nmutilated sentences, in order to deceive those who are unskilled.\nAfterwards they attach something from their own opinions.  Therefore,\nentire passages are to be required, because, according to the common\nprecept, it is unbecoming, before the entire Law is thoroughly\nexamined, to judge or reply when any single clause of it is presented.\nAnd passages, when produced in their entirety, very frequently\nbring the interpretation with them.\n\nLuke 11, 41 is also cited in a mutilated form, namely: Give alms of\nsuch things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.\nThe adversaries are very stupid [are deaf, and have callous ears;\ntherefore, we must so often etc.].  For time and again we have said\nthat to the preaching of the Law there should be added the Gospel\nconcerning Christ, because of whom good works are pleasing, but they\neverywhere teach [without shame] that, Christ being excluded,\njustification is merited by the works of the Law.  When this passage\nis produced unmutilated, it will show that faith is required.  Christ\nrebukes the Pharisees who think that they are cleansed before God i.e.\n, that they are justified by frequent ablutions [by all sorts of\n_baptismata carnis_, that is, by all sorts of baths, washings, and\ncleansings of the body, of vessels, of garments].  Just as some Pope\nor other says of the water sprinkled with salt that it sanctifies and\ncleanses the people; and the gloss says that it cleanses from venial\nsins.  Such also were the opinions of the Pharisees which Christ\nreproved, and to this feigned cleansing He opposes a double cleanness,\nthe one internal, the other external.  He bids them be cleansed\ninwardly [(which occurs only through faith)], and adds concerning the\noutward cleanness: Give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold,\nall things are clean unto you.  The adversaries do not apply aright\nthe universal particle all things; for Christ adds this conclusion to\nboth members: \"All things will be clean unto you, if you will be\nclean within, and will outwardly give alms.\" For He indicates that\noutward cleanness is to be referred to works commanded by God, and\nnot to human traditions, such as the ablutions were at that time, and\nthe daily sprinkling of water, the vesture of monks, the distinctions\nof food, and similar acts of ostentation are now.  But the\nadversaries distort the meaning by sophistically transferring the\nuniversal particle to only one part: \"All things will be clean to\nthose having given alms.\" [As if any one would infer: Andrew is\npresent; therefore all the apostles are present.  Wherefore in the\nantecedent both members ought to be joined: Believe and give alms.\nFor to this the entire mission, the entire office of Christ points;\nto this end He is come that we should believe in Him.  Now, if both\nparts are combined, believing and giving alms, it follows rightly\nthat all things are clean: the heart by faith, the external\nconversation by good works.  Thus we must combine the entire sermon,\nand not invert the parts, and interpret the text to mean that the\nheart is cleansed from sin by alms.  Moreover, there are some who\nthink that these words were spoken by Christ against the Pharisees\nironically, as if He meant to say: Aye, my dear lords, rob and steal,\nand then go and give alms, and you will be promptly cleansed, so that\nChrist would in a somewhat sarcastic and mocking way puncture their\npharisaical hypocrisy.  For, although they abounded in unbelief,\navarice, and every evil work, they still observed their purifications,\ngave alms, and believed that they were quite pure, lovely saints.\nThis interpretation is not contrary to the text.] Yet Peter says,\nActs 15, 9, that hearts are purified by faith.  And when this entire\npassage is examined, it presents a meaning harmonizing with the rest\nof Scripture, that, if the hearts are cleansed and then outwardly\nalms are added, i.e., all the works of love, they are thus entirely\nclean i.e. not only within, but also without.  And why is not the\nentire discourse added to it?  There are many parts of the reproof,\nsome of which give commandment concerning faith and others concerning\nworks.  Nor is it the part of a candid reader to pick out the\ncommands concerning works, while the passages concerning faith are\nomitted.\n\nLastly, readers are to be admonished of this, namely, that the\nadversaries give the worst advice to godly consciences when they\nteach that by works the remission of sins is merited, because\nconscience, in acquiring remission through works, cannot be confident\nthat the work will satisfy God.  Accordingly, it is always tormented,\nand continually devises other works and other acts of worship until\nit altogether despairs.  This course is described by Paul, Rom. 4, 6,\nwhere he proves that the promise of righteousness is not obtained\nbecause of our works, because we could never affirm that we had a\nreconciled God.  For the Law always accuses.  Thus the promise would\nbe in vain and uncertain.  He accordingly concludes that this promise\nof the remission of sins and of righteousness is received by faith,\nnot on account of works.  This is the true, simple, and genuine\nmeaning of Paul, in which the greatest consolation is offered godly\nconsciences, and the glory of Christ is shown forth, who certainly\nwas given to us for this purpose, namely, that through Him we might\nhave grace, righteousness, and peace.\n\nThus far we have reviewed the principal passages which the\nadversaries cite against us, in order to show that faith does not\njustify, and that we merit, by our works, remission of sins and grace.\nBut we hope that we have shown clearly enough to godly consciences\nthat these passages are not opposed to our doctrine; that the\nadversaries wickedly distort the Scriptures to their opinions; that\nthe most of the passages which they cite have been garbled; that,\nwhile omitting the clearest passages concerning faith, they only\nselect from the Scriptures passages concerning works, and even these\nthey distort; that everywhere they add certain human opinions to that\nwhich the words of Scripture say; that they teach the Law in such a\nmanner as to suppress the Gospel concerning Christ.  For the entire\ndoctrine of the adversaries is, in part, derived from human reason,\nand is, in part, a doctrine of the Law, not of the Gospel.  For they\nteach two modes of justification, of which the one has been derived\nfrom reason and the other from the Law, not from the Gospel, or the\npromise concerning Christ.\n\nThe former mode of justification with them is, that they teach that\nby good works men merit grace both _de congruo and de condigno_.\nThis mode is a doctrine of reason, because reason, not seeing the\nuncleanness of the heart, thinks that it pleases God if it perform\ngood works, and for this reason other works and other acts of worship\nare constantly devised, by men in great peril, against the terrors of\nconscience.  The heathen and the Israelites slew human victims, and\nundertook many other most painful works in order to appease God's\nwrath.  Afterwards, orders of monks were devised, and these vied with\neach other in the severity of their observances against the terrors\nof conscience and God's wrath.  And this mode of justification,\nbecause it is according to reason, and is altogether occupied with\noutward works, can be understood, and to a certain extent be rendered.\nAnd to this the canonists have distorted the misunderstood Church\nordinances, which were enacted by the Fathers for a far different\npurpose, namely, not that by these works we should seek after\nrighteousness, but that, for the sake of mutual tranquillity among\nmen, there might be a certain order in the Church.  In this manner\nthey also distorted the Sacraments and most especially the Mass,\nthrough which they seek _ex opere operato_ righteousness, grace, and\nsalvation.\n\n\n\n\nPart 9\n\n\nAnother mode of justification is handed down by the scholastic\ntheologians when they teach that we are righteous through a habit\ninfused by God, which is love, and that, aided by this habit, we\nobserve the Law of God outwardly and inwardly and that this\nfulfilling of the Law is worthy of grace and of eternal life.  This\ndoctrine is plainly the doctrine of the Law.  For that is true which\nthe Law says: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, etc., Deut. 6, 5.\nThou shalt love thy neighbor Lev. 19, 18. Love is, therefore, the\nfulfilling of the Law.\n\nBut it is easy for a Christian to judge concerning both modes,\nbecause both modes exclude Christ, and are therefore to be rejected.\nIn the former, which teaches that our works are a propitiation for\nsin, the impiety is manifest.  The latter mode contains much that is\ninjurious.  It does not teach that, when we are born again, we avail\nourselves of Christ.  It does not teach that justification is the\nremission of sins.  It does not teach that we attain the remission of\nsins before we love but falsely represents that we rouse in ourselves\nthe act of love, through which we merit remission of sins.  Nor does\nit teach that by faith in Christ we overcome the terrors of sin and\ndeath.  It falsely represents that, by their own fulfilling of the\nLaw, without Christ as Propitiator, men come to God.  Finally, it\nrepresents that this very fulfilling of the Law, without Christ as\nPropitiator, is righteousness worthy of grace and eternal life, while\nnevertheless scarcely a weak and feeble fulfilling of the Law occurs\neven in saints.\n\nBut if any one will only reflect upon it that the Gospel has not been\ngiven in vain to the world, and that Christ has not been promised,\nset forth, has not been born, has not suffered, has not risen again\nin vain, he will most readily understand that we are justified not\nfrom reason or from the Law.  In regard to justification, we\ntherefore are compelled to dissent from the adversaries.  For the\nGospel shows another mode; the Gospel compels us to avail ourselves\nof Christ in justification, it teaches that through Him we have\naccess to God by faith; it teaches that we ought to set Him as\nMediator and Propitiator against God's wrath; it teaches that by\nfaith in Christ the remission of sins and reconciliation are received,\nand the terrors of sin and of death overcome.  Thus Paul also says\nthat righteousness is not of the Law, but of the promise, in which\nthe Father has promised that He wishes to forgive, that for Christ's\nsake He wishes to be reconciled.  This promise, however, is received\nby faith alone, as Paul testifies, Rom. 4,13. This faith alone\nreceives remission of sins, justifies, and regenerates.  Then love\nand other good fruits follow.  Thus, therefore, we teach that man is\njustified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the\npreaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ's\nsake it has a reconciled God.  This faith is counted for\nrighteousness before God, Rom. 4, 3. 5. And when in this manner the\nheart is cheered and quickened by faith, it receives the Holy Ghost,\nwho renews us, so that we are able to observe the Law; so that we are\nable to love God and the Word of God, and to be submissive to God in\nafflictions, so that we are able to be chaste, to love our neighbor,\netc. Even though these works are as yet far distant from the\nperfection of the Law, yet they please on account of faith, by which\nwe are accounted righteous, because we believe that for Christ's sake\nwe have a reconciled God.  These things are plain and in harmony with\nthe Gospel, and can be understood by persons of sound mind.  And from\nthis foundation it can easily be decided why we ascribe justification\nto faith, and not to love; although love follows faith, because love\nis the fulfilling of the Law.  But Paul teaches that we are justified\nnot from the Law, but from the promise which is received only by\nfaith.  For we neither come to God without Christ as Mediator, nor\nreceive remission of sins for the sake of our love, but for the sake\nof Christ.  Likewise we are not able to love God while He is angry,\nand the Law always accuses us, always manifests to us an angry God.\nTherefore, by faith we must first apprehend the promise that for\nChrist's sake the Father is reconciled and forgives.  Afterwards we\nbegin to observe the Law.  Our eyes are to be cast far away from\nhuman reason, far away from Moses upon Christ, and we are to believe\nthat Christ is given us, in order that for His sake we may be\naccounted righteous.  In the flesh we never satisfy the Law.  Thus,\ntherefore, we are accounted righteous, not on account of the Law but\non account of Christ because His merits are granted us, if we believe\non Him.  If any one, therefore, has considered these foundations,\nthat we are not justified by the Law because human nature cannot\nobserve the Law of God and cannot love God, but that we are justified\nfrom the promise, in which, for Christ's sake, reconciliation,\nrighteousness, and eternal life have been promised, he will easily\nunderstand that justification must necessarily be ascribed to faith,\nif he only will reflect upon the fact that it is not in vain that\nChrist has been promised and set forth, that He has been born and has\nsuffered and been raised again; if he will reflect upon the fact that\nthe promise of grace in Christ is not in vain, that it was made\nimmediately from the beginning of the world apart from and beyond the\nLaw; if he will reflect upon the fact that the promise should be\nreceived by faith, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10 sq.: He that believeth\nnot God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the record\nthat God gave of His Son.  And this is the record that God hath given\nto us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  He that hath the\nSon hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.\nAnd Christ says John 8, 36: If the Son, therefore, shall make you\nfree, ye shall be free indeed.  And Paul, Rom. 5, 2: By whom also we\nhave access to God; and he adds: by faith.  By faith in Christ,\ntherefore, the promise of remission of sins and of righteousness is\nreceived.  Neither are we justified before God by reason or by the\nLaw.\n\nThese things are so plain and so manifest that we wonder that the\nmadness of the adversaries is so great as to call them into doubt.\nThe proof is manifest that, since we are justified before God not\nfrom the Law but from the promise, it is necessary to ascribe\njustification to faith.  What can be opposed to this proof, unless\nsome one wish to abolish the entire Gospel and the entire Christ?\nThe glory of Christ becomes more brilliant when we teach that we\navail ourselves of Him as Mediator and Propitiator.  Godly\nconsciences see that in this doctrine the most abundant consolation\nis offered to them, namely, that they ought to believe and most\nfirmly assert that they have a reconciled Father for Christ's sake,\nand not for the sake of our righteousness, and that, nevertheless,\nChrist aids us, so that we are able to observe also the Law.  Of such\ngreat blessings as these the adversaries deprive the Church when they\ncondemn and endeavor to efface, the doctrine concerning the\nrighteousness of faith.  Therefore let all well-disposed minds beware\nof consenting to the godless counsels of the adversaries.  In the\ndoctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is\nmade of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God,\nas though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love,\nor to love an angry God.  In regard to these things, consciences are\nleft in uncertainty.  For if they are to think that they have a\nreconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe\nthe Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled\nGod, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversaries\nacknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much\nmore frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of\nGod, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with\ntroubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When,\ntherefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified?\nWhen, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God?  What\nelse is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair?  And let\nany one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning\nthis love, how he himself loves God.  They do not at all understand\nwhat they say they only echo, just like the walls of a house, the\nlittle word \"love,\" without understanding it.  So confused and\nobscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ\nto human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or\nto despair.  But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds,\nand brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences.\nFor as the adversaries quibble that also many wicked men and devils\nbelieve, we have frequently already said that we speak of faith in\nChrist, i.e., of faith in the remission of sins, of faith which truly\nand heartily assents to the promise of grace.  This is not brought\nabout without a great struggle in human hearts.  And men of sound\nmind can easily judge that the faith which believes that we are cared\nfor by God, and that we are forgiven and heard by Him, is a matter\nabove nature.  For of its own accord the human mind makes no such\ndecision concerning God.  Therefore this faith of which we speak is\nneither in the wicked nor in devils.\n\nFurthermore, if any sophist cavils that righteousness is in the will,\nand therefore it cannot be ascribed to faith, which is in the\nintellect, the reply is easy, because in the schools even such\npersons acknowledge that the will commands the intellect to assent to\nthe Word of God.  We say also quite clearly: Just as the terrors of\nsin and death are not only thoughts of the intellect, but also\nhorrible movements of the will fleeing God's judgment, so faith is\nnot only knowledge in the intellect, but also confidence in the will,\ni.e., it is to wish and to receive that which is offered in the\npromise, namely, reconciliation and remission of sins.  Scripture\nthus uses the term \"faith,\" as the following sentence of Paul\ntestifies, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with\nGod.  Moreover, in this passage, to justify signifies, according to\nforensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but\non account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which\nrighteousness of another is communicated to us by faith.  Therefore,\nsince in this passage our righteousness is the imputation of the\nrighteousness of another, we must here speak concerning righteousness\notherwise than when in philosophy or in a civil court we seek after\nthe righteousness of one's own work which certainly is in the will.\nPaul accordingly says, 1 Cor. 1, 30: Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,\nwho of God is made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness, and\nSanctification, and Redemption.  And 2 Cor. 5, 21: He hath mode Him\nto be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the\nrighteousness of God in Him.  But because the righteousness of Christ\nis given us by faith, faith is for this reason righteousness in us\nimputatively, i.e., it is that by which we are made acceptable to God\non account of the imputation and ordinance of God, as Paul says, Rom.\n4, 3. 5: Faith is reckoned for righteousness.  Although on account of\ncertain captious persons we must say technically: Faith is truly\nrighteousness, because it is obedience to the Gospel.  For it is\nevident that obedience to the command of a superior is truly a\nspecies of distributive justice.  And this obedience to the Gospel is\nreckoned for righteousness, so that, only on account of this, because\nby this we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, good works, or obedience\nto the Law, are pleasing.  For we do not satisfy the Law, but for\nChrist's sake this is forgiven us, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is\ntherefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.\nThis faith gives God the honor, gives God that which is His own, in\nthis, that, by receiving the promises, it obeys Him.  Just as Paul\nalso says, Rom. 4, 20: He staggered not at the promise of God through\nunbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.  Thus the\nworship and divine service of the Gospel is to receive from God gifts,\non the contrary, the worship of the Law is to offer and present our\ngifts to God.  We can, however, offer nothing to God unless we have\nfirst been reconciled and born again.  This passage too, brings the\ngreatest consolation, as the chief worship of the Gospel is to wish\nto receive remission of sins, grace, and righteousness.  Of this\nworship Christ says, John 6, 40: This is the will of Him that sent Me,\nthat every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have\neverlasting life.  And the Father says, Matt. 17, 5: This is My\nbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.  The adversaries\nspeak of obedience to the Law; they do not speak of obedience to the\nGospel, and yet we cannot obey the Law, unless, through the Gospel,\nwe have been born again, since we cannot love God, unless the\nremission of sins has been received.  For as long as we feel that He\nis angry with us, human nature flees from His wrath and judgment.  If\nany one should make a cavil such as this: If that be faith which\nwishes those things that are offered in the promise, the habits of\nfaith and hope seem to be confounded, because hope is that which\nexpects promised things, to this we reply that these dispositions\ncannot in reality be severed, in the manner that they are divided by\nidle speculations in the schools.  For also in the Epistle to the\nHebrews faith is defined as the substance (_exspectatio_) of things\nhoped for, Heb. 11, 1. Yet if any one wish a distinction to be made,\nwe say that the object of hope is properly a future event, but that\nfaith is concerned with future and present things, and receives in\nthe present the remission of sins offered in the promise.\n\nFrom these statements we hope that it can be sufficiently understood\nboth what faith is and that we are compelled to hold that by faith we\nare justified, reconciled, and regenerated, if, indeed, we wish to\nteach the righteousness of the Gospel, and not the righteousness of\nthe Law.  For those who teach that we are justified by love teach the\nrighteousness of the Law, and do not teach us in justification to\navail ourselves of Christ as Mediator.  These things also are\nmanifest namely, that not by love, but by faith, we overcome the\nterrors of sin and death, that we cannot oppose our love and\nfulfilling of the Law to the wrath of God, because Paul says, Rom. 5,\n2: By Christ we have access to God by faith.  We urge this sentence\nso frequently for the sake of perspicuity.  For it shows most clearly\nthe state of our whole case, and, when carefully considered, can\nteach abundantly concerning the whole matter, and can console\nwell-disposed minds.  Accordingly, it is of advantage to have it at\nhand and in sight, not only that we may be able to oppose it to the\ndoctrine of our adversaries, who teach that we come to God not by\nfaith, but by love and merits, without Christ as Mediator; and also,\nat the same time that, when in fear, we may cheer ourselves and\nexercise faith.  This is also manifest, that without the aid of\nChrist we cannot observe the Law, as He Himself says John 15, 5:\nWithout Me ye can do nothing.  Accordingly, before we observe the Law,\nour hearts must be born again by faith.  [From the explanations\nwhich we have made it can easily be inferred what answer must be\ngiven to similar quotations.  For the rule so interprets all passages\nthat treat of good works that outside of Christ they are to be\nworthless before God, and that the heart must first have Christ, and\nbelieve that it is accepted with God for Christ's sake, not because\nof its own works.  The adversaries also bring forward some arguments\nof the schools, which are easily answered, if you know what faith is.\nTried Christians speak of faith quite differently from the sophists,\nfor we have shown before that to believe means to rely on the mercy\nof God, that He desires to be gracious for Christ's sake, without our\nmerits.  That is what it means to believe the article of the\nforgiveness of sin.  To believe this does not mean to know the\nhistory only, which the devils also know.  Therefore we can easily\nmeet the argument of the schools when they say that the devils also\nbelieve, therefore faith does not justify.  Aye, the devils know the\nhistory, but they do not believe the forgiveness of sin.  Again, they\nsay: To be righteous is to be obedient.  Now, to perform works is\ncertainly obedience; therefore works must justify.  We should answer\nthis as follows: To be righteous is a kind of obedience which God\naccepts as such.  Now God is not willing to accept our obedience in\nworks as righteousness; for it is not an obedience of the heart,\nbecause none truly keep the Law.  For this reason He has ordained\nthat there should be another kind of obedience which He will accept\nas righteousness, namely, that we are to acknowledge our disobedience,\nand trust that we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, not on\naccount of our obedience.  Accordingly, to be righteous in this case\nmeans to be pleasing to God, not on account of our own obedience, but\nfrom mercy for Christ's sake.  Again, to sin is to hate God;\ntherefore, to love God must be righteousness.  True, to love God is\nthe righteousness of the Law.  But nobody fulfils this Law.\nTherefore the Gospel teaches a new kind of righteousness, namely,\nthat we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, although we have not\nfulfilled the Law; and yet, we are to begin to do the Law.  Again,\nwhat is the difference between faith and hope?  Answer: Hope expects\nfuture blessings and deliverance from tribulation; faith receives the\npresent reconciliation, and concludes in the heart that God has\nforgiven my sin, and that He is now gracious to me.  And this is a\nnoble service of God, which serves God by giving Him the honor, and\nby esteeming His mercy and promise so sure that without merit we can\nreceive and expect from Him all manner of blessings.  And in this\nservice of God the heart should be exercised and increase, of which\nthe foolish sophists know nothing.]\n\nHence it can also be understood why we find fault with the doctrine\nof the adversaries concerning _meritum condigni_.  The decision is\nvery easy: because they do not make mention of faith, that we please\nGod by faith for Christ's sake, but imagine that good works, wrought\nby the aid of the habit of love, constitute a righteousness worthy by\nitself to please God, and worthy of eternal life, and that they have\nno need of Christ as Mediator.  [This can in no wise be tolerated.]\nWhat else is this than to transfer the glory of Christ to our works,\nnamely that we please God because of our works, and not because of\nChrist?  But this is also to rob Christ of the glory of being the\nMediator who is Mediator perpetually, and not merely in the beginning\nof Justification.  Paul also says, Gal. 2, 17, that If one justified\nin Christ have need afterwards to seek righteousness elsewhere, he\naffirms of Christ that He is a minister of sin, i.e., that He does\nnot fully justify.  [And this is what the holy, catholic, Christian\nChurch teaches, preaches, and confesses, namely, that we are saved by\nmercy as we have shown above from Jerome.] And most absurd is that\nwhich the adversaries teach, namely, that good works merit _grace de\ncondigno_, as though indeed after the beginning of justification, if\nconscience is terrified, as is ordinarily the case, grace must be\nsought through a good work, and not by faith in Christ.\n\nSecondly, the doctrine of the adversaries leaves consciences in doubt,\nso that they never can be pacified, because the Law always accuses\nus, even in good works.  For always the flesh lusteth against the\nSpirit, Gal. 5, 17. How, therefore, will conscience here have peace\nwithout faith, if it believe that, not for Christ's sake, but for the\nsake of one's own work, it ought now to please God?  What work will\nit find, upon what will it firmly rely as worthy of eternal life, if,\nindeed, hope ought to originate from merits?  Against these doubts\nPaul says, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with\nGod; we ought to be firmly convinced that for Christ's sake\nrighteousness and eternal life are granted us.  And of Abraham he\nsays Rom. 4, 18: Against hope he believed in hope.\n\nThirdly, how will conscience know when by the inclination of this\nhabit of love, a work has been done of which it may affirm that it\nmerits _grace de condigno_?  But it is only to elude the Scriptures\nthat this very distinction has been devised, namely, that men merit\nat one time _de congruo_ and at another time _de condigno_, because,\nas we have above said, the intention of the one who works does not\ndistinguish the kinds of merit; but hypocrites, in their security,\nthink simply their works are worthy, and that for this reason they\nare accounted righteous.  On the other hand, terrified consciences\ndoubt concerning all works, and for this reason are continually\nseeking other works.  For this is what it means to _merit de congruo_,\nnamely to doubt and, without faith, to work, until despair takes\nplace.  In a word, all that the adversaries teach in regard to this\nmatter is full of errors and dangers.\n\nFourthly, the entire [the holy, catholic, Christian] Church confesses\nthat eternal life is attained through mercy.  For thus Augustine\nspeaks On Grace and Free Will, when indeed, he is speaking of the\nworks of the saints wrought after justification: God leads us to\neternal life not by our merits, but according to His mercy.  And\nConfessions, Book IX: Woe to the life of man, however much it may be\nworthy of praise, if it be judged with mercy removed.  And Cyprian in\nhis treatise on the Lord's Prayer: Lest any one should flatter\nhimself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself, should perish\nthe more deeply, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in\nthat he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins.  But the subject is\nwell known, and has very many and very clear testimonies in Scripture,\nand in the Church Fathers, who all with one mouth declare that, even\nthough we have good works yet in these very works we need mercy.\nFaith looking upon this mercy cheers and consoles us.  Wherefore the\nadversaries teach erroneously when they so extol merits as to add\nnothing concerning this faith that apprehends mercy.  For just as we\nhave above said that the promise and faith stand in a reciprocal\nrelation, and that the promise is not apprehended unless by faith, so\nwe here say that the promised mercy correlatively requires faith, and\ncannot be apprehended without faith.  Therefore we justly find fault\nwith the doctrine concerning _meritum condigni_, since it teaches\nnothing of justifying faith, and obscures the glory and office of\nChrist as Mediator.  Nor should we be regarded as teaching anything\nnew in this matter, since the Church Fathers have so clearly handed\ndown the doctrine that even in good works we need mercy.\n\nScripture also often inculcates the same.  In Ps. 143, 9: And enter\nnot into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man\nliving be justified.  This passage denies absolutely, even to all\nsaints and servants of God, the glory of righteousness, if God does\nnot forgive, but judges and convicts their hearts.  For when David\nboasts in other places of his righteousness, he speaks concerning his\nown cause against the persecutors of God's Word, he does not speak of\nhis personal purity; and he asks that the cause and glory of God be\ndefended, as in Ps. 7, 8: Judge me, O Lord, according to Thy\nrighteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.\nLikewise in Ps. 130, 3, he says that no one can endure God's judgment,\nif God were to mark our sins: If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark\niniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?  Job 9, 28: I am afraid of all\nmy sorrows [Vulg., opera, works]; v. 30: If I wash myself with\nsnow-water, and make my hands never so clean, yet Thou shalt plunge\nme in the ditch.  Prov. 20, 9: Who can say, I have made my heart\nclean, I am pure from my sin? 1 John 1, 8: If we say that we have no\nsin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, etc. And in the\nLord's Prayer the saints ask for the remission of sins.  Therefore\neven the saints have sins.  Num. 14, 18: The innocent shall not be\ninnocent [cf.  Ex. 34, 7].  Deut. 4, 24: The Lord, thy God, is a\nconsuming fire.  Zechariah also says, 2, 13: Be silent, O all flesh,\nbefore the Lord.  Is. 40, 6: All flesh is as grass, and all the\ngoodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth,\nthe flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it, i.\ne., flesh and righteousness of the flesh cannot endure the judgment\nof God.  Jonah also says, chap. 2, 8: They that observe lying\nvanities forsake their own mercy, i.e., all confidence is vain,\nexcept confidence in mercy; mercy delivers us; our own merits, our\nown efforts, do not.  Accordingly, Daniel also prays, 9, 18 sq.: For\nwe do not present our supplications before Thee for our\nrighteousnesses but for Thy great mercies.  O Lord, hear; O Lord,\nforgive; O Lord, hearken and do it; defer not for Thine own sake, O\nmy God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name.  Thus\nDaniel teaches us in praying to lay hold upon mercy, i.e., to trust\nin God's mercy, and not to trust in our own merits before God.  We\nalso wonder what our adversaries do in prayer, if, indeed, the\nprofane men ever ask anything of God.  If they declare that they are\nworthy because they have love and good works, and ask for grace as a\ndebt, they pray precisely like the Pharisee in Luke 18, 11, who says:\nI am not as other men are.  He who thus prays for grace and does not\nrely upon God's mercy, treats Christ with dishonor, who, since He is\nour High Priest, intercedes for us.  Thus, therefore, prayer relies\nupon God's mercy, when we believe that we are heard for the sake of\nChrist the High Priest, as He Himself says, John 14, 13: Whatsoever\nye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you.  In My name,\nHe says, because without this High Priest we cannot approach the\nFather.\n\n[All prudent men will see what follows from the opinion of the\nadversaries.  For if we shall believe that Christ has merited only\nthe _prima gratia_, as they call it, and that we afterwards merit\neternal life by our works, hearts or consciences will be pacified\nneither at the hour of death, nor at any other time, nor can they\never build upon certain ground; they are never certain that God is\ngracious.  Thus their doctrine unintermittingly leads to nothing but\nmisery of soul and, finally, to despair.  For God's Law is not a\nmatter of pleasantry; it ceaselessly accuses consciences outside of\nChrist, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath.  Thus it\nwill happen that if consciences feel the judgment of God, they have\nno certain comfort and will rush into despair.\n\nPaul says: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14, 23. But those\npersons can do nothing from faith who are first to attain to this\nthat God is gracious to them only when they have at length fulfilled\nthe Law.  They will always quake with doubt whether they have done\nenough good works, whether the Law has been satisfied, yea, they will\nkeenly feel and understand that they are still under obligation to\nthe Law.  Accordingly, they will never be sure that they have a\ngracious God, and that their prayer is heard.  Therefore they can\nnever truly love God, nor expect any blessing from Him, nor truly\nworship God.  What else are such hearts and consciences than hell\nitself, since there is nothing in them but despair, fainting away\ngrumbling, discontent, and hatred of God, and yet in this hatred they\ninvoke and worship God, just as Saul worshiped Him\n\nHere we appeal to all Christian minds and to all that are experienced\nin trials; they will be forced to confess and say that such great\nuncertainty, such disquietude, such torture and anxiety, such\nhorrible fear and doubt follow from this teaching of the adversaries\nwho imagine that we are accounted righteous before God by our own\nworks or fulfilling of the Law which we perform, and point us to\nQueer Street by bidding us trust not in the rich, blessed promises of\nGrace, given us by Christ the Mediator, but in our own miserable\nworks!  Therefore, this conclusion stands like a rock, yea, like a\nwall, namely, that, although we have begun to do the Law, still we\nare accepted with God and at peace with Him, not on account of such\nworks of ours, but for Christ's sake by faith; nor does God owe us\neverlasting life on account of these works.  But just as forgiveness\nof sin and righteousness is imputed to us for Christ's sake, not on\naccount of our works, or the Law, so everlasting life, together with\nrighteousness, is offered us, not on account of our works, or of the\nLaw, but for Christ's sake as Christ says, John 6, 40: This is the\nFather's will that sent He, that every one which seeth the Son, and\nbelieveth on Him may have everlasting life.  Again, v. 47: He that\nbelieveth on the Son hath everlasting life.  Now, the adversaries\nshould be asked at this point what advice they give to poor\nconsciences in the hour of death: whether they comfort consciences by\ntelling them that they will have a blessed departure, that they will\nbe saved, and have a propitiated God, because of their own merits or\nbecause of God's grace and mercy for Christ's sake.  For St. Peter St.\nPaul, and saints like them cannot boast that God owes them eternal\nlife for their martyrdom, nor have they relied on their works, but on\nthe mercy promised in Christ.\n\nNor would it be possible that a saint, great and high though he be,\ncould make a firm stand against the accusations of the divine Law,\nthe great might of the devil, the terror of death, and, finally,\nagainst despair and the anguish of hell, if he would not grasp the\ndivine promises, the Gospel, as a tree or branch in the great flood\nin the strong, violent stream, amidst the waves and billows of the\nanguish of death; if he does not cling by faith to the Word, which\nproclaims grace, and thus obtains eternal life without works, without\nthe Law, from pure grace.  For this doctrine alone preserves\nChristian consciences in afflictions and anguish of death.  Of these\nthings the adversaries know nothing, and talk of them like a blind\nman about color.\n\nHere they will say: If we are to be saved by pure mercy, what\ndifference is there between those who are saved, and those who are\nnot saved?  If merit is of no account, there is no difference between\nthe evil and the good and it follows that both are saved alike.  This\nargument has moved the scholastics to invent the _meritum condigni_;\nfor there must be (they think) a difference between those who are\nsaved and those who are damned.\n\nWe reply; in the first place, that everlasting life is accorded to\nthose whom God esteems just, and when they have been esteemed just,\nthey are become, by that act, the children of God and coheirs of\nChrist, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He also\nglorified.  Hence nobody is saved except only those who believe the\nGospel.  But as our reconciliation with God is uncertain if it is to\nrest on our works, and not on the gracious promise of God, which\ncannot fail, so, too, all that we expect by hope would be uncertain\nif it must be built on the foundation of our merits and works.  For\nthe Law of God ceaselessly accuses the conscience and men feel in\ntheir hearts nothing but this voice from the fiery, flaming cloud: I\nam the Lord, thy God; this thou shalt do; that thou art obliged to do;\nthis I require of thee.  Deut. 5, 6 ff.  No conscience can for a\nmoment be at rest when the Law and Moses assails the heart, before it\napprehends Christ by faith.  Nor can it truly hope for eternal life,\nunless it be pacified before.  For a doubting conscience flees from\nGod, despairs and cannot hope.  However, hope of eternal life must be\ncertain.  Now, in order that it may not be fickle, but certain, we\nmust believe that we have eternal life, not by our works or merits,\nbut from pure grace, by faith in Christ.\n\nIn secular affairs and in secular courts we meet with both, mercy and\njustice.  Justice is certain by the laws and the verdict rendered,\nmercy is uncertain.  In this matter that relates to God the case is\ndifferent; for grace and mercy have been promised us by a certain\nword, and the Gospel is the word which commands us to believe that\nGod is gracious and wishes to save us for Christ's sake, as the text\nreads, John 3, 17: God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the\nworld, but that the world through Him might be saved.  He that\nbelieveth on Him is not condemned.\n\nNow, whenever we speak of mercy, the meaning is to be this, that\nfaith is required, and it is this faith that makes the difference\nbetween those who are saved, and those who are damned, between those\nwho are worthy, and those who are unworthy.  For everlasting life has\nbeen promised to none but those who have been reconciled by Christ.\nFaith, however, reconciles and justifies before God the moment we\napprehend the promise by faith.  And throughout our entire life we\nare to pray God and be diligent, to receive faith and to grow in\nfaith.  For, as stated before, faith is where repentance is, and it\nis not in those who walk after the flesh.  This faith is to grow and\nincrease throughout our life by all manner of afflictions.  Those who\nobtain faith are regenerated, so that they lead a new life and do\ngood works.\n\nNow, just as we say that true repentance is to endure throughout our\nentire life, we say, too, that good works and the fruits of faith\nmust be done throughout our life, although our works never become so\nprecious as to be equal to the treasure of Christ, or to merit\neternal life, as Christ says, Luke 17, 10: When ye shall have done\nall those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable\nservants.  And St. Bernard truly says: There is need that you must\nfirst believe that you cannot have forgiveness of sin except by the\ngrace of God; next, that thereafter you cannot have and do any good\nwork unless God grants it to you; lastly, that you cannot earn\neternal life with your works, though it is not given you without\nmerit.  A little further on he says: Let no one deceive himself; for\nwhen you rightly consider the matter, you will undoubtedly find that\nyou cannot meet with ten thousand him who approaches you with twenty\nthousand.  These are strong sayings of St. Bernard; let them believe\nthese if they will not believe us.\n\nIn order, then, that hearts may have a true certain comfort and hope,\nwe point them, with Paul, to the divine promise of grace in Christ,\nand teach that we must believe that God gives us eternal life, not on\naccount of our works, but for Christ's sake, as the Apostle John says\nin his Epistle, 1, 5, 12: He that hath the Son hath life, and he that\nhath not the Son of God hath not life.]\n\n\n\n\nPart 10\n\n\nHere belongs also the declaration of Christ, Luke 17, 10: So likewise\nye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,\nsay, We are unprofitable servants.  These words clearly declare that\nGod saves by mercy and on account of His promise, not that it is due\non account of the value of our works.  But at this point the\nadversaries play wonderfully with the words of Christ.  In the first\nplace, they make an antistrophe and turn it against us.  Much more,\nthey say, can it be said: \"If we have believed all things, say, We\nare unprofitable servants.\" Then they add that works are of no profit\nto God, but are not without profit to us.  See how the puerile study\nof sophistry delights the adversaries, and although these absurdities\ndo not deserve a refutation, nevertheless we will reply to them in a\nfew words.  The antistrophe is defective.  For, in the first place,\nthe adversaries are deceived in regard to the term faith; because, if\nit would signify that knowledge of the history which is also in the\nwicked and in devils, the adversaries would be correct in arguing\nthat faith is unprofitable when they say: \"When we have believed all\nthings, say, We are unprofitable servants.\" But we are speaking, not\nof the knowledge of the history, but of confidence in the promise and\nmercy of God.  And this confidence in the promise confesses that we\nare unprofitable servants; yea, this confession that our works are\nunworthy is the very voice of faith, as appears in this example of\nDaniel, 9, 18, which we cited a little above: We do not present our\nsupplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, etc. For faith\nsaves because it apprehends mercy, or the promise of grace, even\nthough our works are unworthy; and, thus understood, namely that our\nworks are unworthy, the antistrophe does not injure us: \"When ye\nshall have believed all things, say, We are unprofitable servants\";\nfor that we are saved by mercy, we teach with the entire Church.  But\nif they mean to argue from the similar: When you have done all things,\ndo not trust in your works, so also, when you have believed all\nthings, do not trust in the divine promise there is no connection.\n[The inference is wrong: \"Works do not help; therefore, faith also\ndoes not help.\" We must give the uncultured men a homely illustration:\nIt does not follow that because a half-farthing does not help,\ntherefore a florin also does not help.  Just as the florins is of\nmuch higher denomination and value than the half-farthing, so also\nshould it be understood that faith is much higher and more\nefficacious than works.  Not that faith helps because of its worth,\nbut because it trusts in God's promises and mercy.  Faith is strong,\nnot because of its worthiness, but because of the divine promise.]\nFor they are very dissimilar, as the causes and objects of confidence\nin the former proposition are far dissimilar to those of the latter.\nIn the former, confidence is confidence in our own works.  In the\nlatter, confidence is confidence in the divine promise.  Christ,\nhowever, condemns confidence in our works; He does not condemn\nconfidence in His promise.  He does not wish us to despair of God's\ngrace and mercy.  He accuses our works as unworthy, but does not\naccuse the promise which freely offers mercy.  And here Ambrose says\nwell: grace is to be acknowledged; but nature must not be disregarded.\nWe must trust in the promise of grace and not in our own nature.\nBut the adversaries act in accordance with their custom, and distort,\nagainst faith, the judgments which have been given on behalf of faith.\n[Hence, Christ in this place forbids men to trust in their own\nworks; for they cannot help them.  On the other hand, He does not\nforbid to trust in God's promise.  Yea, He requires such trust in the\npromise of God for the very reason that we are unprofitable servants\nand works can be of no help.  Therefore, the knaves have improperly\napplied to our trust in the divine promise the words of Christ which\ntreat of trust in our own worthiness.  This clearly reveals and\ndefeats their sophistry.  May the Lord Christ soon put to shame the\nsophists who thus mutilate His holy Word!  Amen.] We leave, however,\nthese thorny points to the schools.  The sophistry is plainly puerile\nwhen they interpret \"unprofitable servant \" as meaning that the works\nare unprofitable to God, but are profitable to us.  Yet Christ speaks\nconcerning that profit which makes God a debtor of grace to us,\nalthough it is out of place to discuss here concerning that which is\nprofitable or unprofitable.  For \"unprofitable servants\" means\n\"insufficient,\" because no one fears God as much, and loves God as\nmuch, and believes God as much as he ought.  But let us dismiss these\nfrigid cavils of the adversaries, concerning which, if at any time\nthey are brought to the light, prudent men will easily decide what\nthey should judge.  They have found a flaw in words which are very\nplain and clear.  But every one sees that in this passage confidence\nin our own works is condemned.\n\nLet us, therefore, hold fast to this which the Church confesses,\nnamely, that we are saved by mercy.  And lest any one may here think:\n\"If we are to be saved by mercy, hope will be uncertain, if in those\nwho obtain salvation nothing precedes by which they may be\ndistinguished from those who do not obtain it,\" we must give him a\nsatisfactory answer.  For the scholastics, moved by this reason, seem\nto have devised the _meritum condigni_.  For this consideration can\ngreatly exercise the human mind.  We will therefore reply briefly.\nFor the very reason that hope may be sure, for the very reason that\nthere may be an antecedent distinction between those who obtain\nsalvation, and those who do not obtain it, it is necessary firmly to\nhold that we are saved by mercy.  When this is expressed thus\nunqualifiedly, it seems absurd.  For in civil courts and in human\njudgment, that which is of right or of debt is certain, and mercy is\nuncertain.  But the matter is different with respect to God's\njudgment; for here mercy has a clear and certain promise and command\nfrom God.  For the Gospel is properly that command which enjoins us\nto believe that God is propitious to us for Christ's sake.  For God\nsent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the\nworld through Him might be saved, John 3, 17. 18. As often, therefore,\nas mercy is spoken of, faith in the promise must be added; and this\nfaith produces sure hope, because it relies upon the Word and command\nof God.  If hope would rely upon works, then, indeed, it would be\nuncertain, because works cannot pacify the conscience, as has been\nsaid above frequently.  And this faith makes a distinction between\nthose who obtain salvation, and those who do not obtain it.  Faith\nmakes the distinction between the worthy and the unworthy, because\neternal life has been promised to the justified; and faith justifies.\n\nBut here again the adversaries will cry out that there is no need of\ngood works if they do not merit eternal life.  These calumnies we\nhave refuted above.  Of course, it is necessary to do good works.  We\nsay that eternal life has been promised to the justified.  But those\nwho walk according to the flesh retain neither faith nor\nrighteousness.  We are for this very end justified, that, being\nrighteous we may begin to do good works and to obey God's Law.  We\nare regenerated and receive the Holy Ghost for the very end that the\nnew life may produce new works, new dispositions, the fear and love\nof God, hatred of concupiscence, etc. This faith of which we speak\narises in repentance, and ought to be established and grow in the\nmidst of good works, temptations, and dangers, so that we may\ncontinually be the more firmly persuaded that God for Christ's sake\ncares for us, forgives us, hears us.  This is not learned with out\nmany and great struggles.  How often is conscience aroused, how often\ndoes it incite even to despair when it brings to view sins, either\nold or new, or the impurity of our nature!  This handwriting is not\nblotted out without a great struggle, in which experience testifies\nwhat a difficult matter faith is.  And while we are cheered in the\nmidst of the terrors and receive consolation, other spiritual\nmovements at the same time grow, the knowledge of God, fear of God,\nhope, love of God; and we are regenerated, as Paul says, Col. 3, 10\nand 2 Cor. 3, 18, in the knowledge of God, and, beholding the glory\nof the Lord, are changed into the same image, i.e., we receive the\ntrue knowledge of God, so that we truly fear Him, truly trust that we\nare cared for and that we are heard by Him.  This regeneration is, as\nit were, the beginning of eternal life, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 10: If\nChrist be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is\nlife because of righteousness.  And 2 Cor. 5, 2. 3: We are clothed\nupon, if so be that, being clothed, we shall not be found naked.\nFrom these statements the candid reader can judge that we certainly\nrequire good works, since we teach that this faith arises in\nrepentance, and in repentance ought continually to increase; and in\nthese matters we place Christian and spiritual perfection, if\nrepentance and faith grow together in repentance.  This can be better\nunderstood by the godly than those things which are taught by the\nadversaries concerning contemplation or perfection.  Just as, however,\njustification pertains to faith, so also life eternal pertains to\nfaith.  And Peter says, 1 Pet. 1, 9: Receiving the end, or fruit, of\nyour faith, the salvation of your souls.  For the adversaries confess\nthat the justified are children of God and coheirs of Christ.\nAfterwards works, because on account of faith they please God, merit\nother bodily and spiritual rewards.  For there will be distinctions\nin the glory of the saints.\n\nBut here the adversaries reply that eternal life is called a reward,\nand that therefore it is merited _de condigno_ by good works.  We\nreply briefly and plainly: Paul, Rom. 6, 23, calls eternal life a\ngift, because by the righteousness presented for Christ's sake, we\nare made at the same time sons of God and coheirs of Christ, as John\nsays, 3, 36: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.  And\nAugustine says, as also do very many others who follow him: God\ncrowns His gifts in us.  Elsewhere indeed, Luke 5, 23, it is written:\nYour reward is great in heaven.  If these passages seem to the\nadversaries to conflict, they themselves may explain them.  But they\nare not fair judges; for they omit the word gift.  They omit also the\nsources of the entire matter [the chief part, how we are justified\nbefore God, also that Christ remains at all times the Mediator], and\nthey select the word reward, and most harshly interpret this not only\nagainst Scripture, but also against the usage of the language.  Hence\nthey infer that inasmuch as it is called a reward, our works,\ntherefore, are such that they ought to be a price for which eternal\nlife is due.  They are, therefore, worthy of grace and life eternal,\nand do not stand in need of mercy, or of Christ as Mediator, or of\nfaith.  This logic is altogether new; we hear the term reward, and\ntherefore are to infer that there is no need of Christ as Mediator,\nor of faith having access to God for Christ's sake, and not for the\nsake of our works!  Who does not see that these are anacoluthons?  We\ndo not contend concerning the term reward.  We dispute concerning\nthis matter, namely, whether good works are of themselves worthy of\ngrace and of eternal life, or whether they please only on account of\nfaith, which apprehends Christ as Mediator.  Our adversaries not only\nascribe this to works, namely, that they are worthy of grace and of\neternal life, but they also state falsely that they have superfluous\nmerits, which they can grant to others, and by which they can justify\nothers, as when monks sell the merits of their orders to others.\nThese monstrosities they heap up in the manner of Chrysippus, where\nthis one word reward is heard, namely: \"It is called a reward, and\ntherefore we have works which are a price for which a reward is due;\ntherefore works please by themselves, and not for the sake of Christ\nas Mediator.  And since one has more merits than another, therefore\nsome have superfluous merits.  And those who merit them can bestow\nthese merits upon others.\" Stop, reader; you have not the whole of\nthis sorites.  For certain sacraments of this donation must be added;\nthe hood is placed upon the dead.  [As the Barefooted monks and other\norders have shamelessly done in placing the hoods of their orders\nupon dead bodies.] By such accumulations the blessings brought us in\nChrist, and the righteousness of faith have been obscured.  [These\nare acute and strong arguments, all of which they can spin from the\nsingle word reward, whereby they obscure Christ and faith.]\n\nWe are not agitating an idle logomachy concerning the term reward\n[but this great, exalted, most important matter, namely, where\nChristian hearts are to find true and certain consolation; again,\nwhether our works can give consciences rest and peace; again, whether\nwe are to believe that our works are worthy of eternal life, or\nwhether that is given us for Christ's sake.  These are the real\nquestions regarding these matters; if consciences are not rightly\ninstructed concerning these, they can have no certain comfort.\nHowever, we have stated clearly enough that good works do not fulfil\nthe Law, that we need the mercy of God, that by faith we are accepted\nwith God, that good works, be they ever so precious, even if they\nwere the works of St. Paul himself, cannot bring rest to the\nconscience.  From all this it follows that we are to believe that we\nobtain eternal life through Christ by faith, not on account of our\nworks, or of the Law.  But what do we say of the reward which\nScripture mentions?] If the adversaries will concede that we are\naccounted righteous by faith because of Christ, and that good works\nplease God because of faith, we will not afterwards contend much\nconcerning the term reward.  We confess that eternal life is a reward,\nbecause it is something due on account of the promise, not on\naccount of our merits.  For the justification has been promised,\nwhich we have above shown to be properly a gift of God; and to this\ngift has been added the promise of eternal life, according to Rom. 8,\n30: Whom He justified, them He also glorified.  Here belongs what\nPaul says, 2 Tim. 4, 8: There is laid up for me a crown of\nrighteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me.\nFor the crown is due the justified because of the promise.  And this\npromise saints should know, not that they may labor for their own\nprofit, for they ought to labor for the glory of God; but in order\nthat they may not despair in afflictions, they should know God's will,\nthat He desires to aid, to deliver, to protect them.  [Just as the\ninheritance and all possessions of a father are given to the son, as\na rich compensation and reward for his obedience, and yet the son\nreceives the inheritance, not on account of his merit, but because\nthe father, for the reason that he is his father, wants him to have\nit.  Therefore it is a sufficient reason why eternal life is called a\nreward, because thereby the tribulations which we suffer, and the\nworks of love which we do, are compensated, although we have not\ndeserved it.  For there are two kinds of compensation: one, which we\nare obliged, the other, which we are not obliged, to render.  I.e.,\nwhen the emperor grants a servant a principality, he therewith\ncompensates the servant's work; and yet the work is not worth the\nprincipality, but the servant acknowledges that he has received a\ngracious lien.  Thus God does not owe us eternal life, still, when He\ngrants it to believers for Christ's sake, that is a compensation for\nour sufferings and works.] Although the perfect hear the mention of\npenalties and rewards in one way, and the weak hear it in another way;\nfor the weak labor for the sake of their own advantage.  And yet the\npreaching of rewards and punishments is necessary.  In the preaching\nof punishments the wrath of God is set forth, and therefore this\npertains to the preaching of repentance.  In the preaching of rewards,\ngrace is set forth.  And just as Scripture, in the mention of good\nworks, often embraces faith,--for it wishes righteousness of the\nheart to be included with the fruits,--so sometimes it offers grace\ntogether with other rewards as in Is. 58, 8 f., and frequently in\nother places in the prophets.  We also confess what we have often\ntestified, that, although justification and eternal life pertain to\nfaith, nevertheless good works merit other bodily and spiritual\nrewards [which are rendered both in this life and after this life;\nfor God defers most rewards until He glorifies saints after this life,\nbecause He wishes them in this life to be exercised in mortifying\nthe old man] and degrees of rewards, according to 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every\nman shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.  [For\nthe blessed will have reward, one higher than the other.  This\ndifference merit makes, according as it pleases God; and it is merit,\nbecause they do these good works whom God has adopted as children and\nheirs.  For thus they have merit which is their own and peculiar as\none child with respect to another.] For the righteousness of the\nGospel, which has to do with the promise of grace, freely receives\njustification and quickening.  But the fulfilling of the Law, which\nfollows faith, has to do with the Law, in which a reward is offered\nand is due, not freely, but according to our works.  But those who\nmerit this are justified before they do the Law.  Therefore as Paul\nsays, Col. 1, 13; Rom. 8, 17, they have before been translated into\nthe kingdom of God's Son, and been made joint-heirs with Christ.  But\nas often as mention is made of merit, the adversaries immediately\ntransfer the matter from other rewards to justification, although the\nGospel freely offers justification on account of Christ's merits and\nnot of our own; and the merits of Christ are communicated to us by\nfaith.  But works and afflictions merit, not justification, but other\nremunerations, as the reward is offered for the works in these\npassages: He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he\nwhich soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully, 2 Cor. 9, 6.\nHere clearly the measure of the reward is connected with the measure\nof the work.  Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be\nlong upon the land, Ex. 20, 12. Also here the Law offers a reward to\na certain work.  Although, therefore, the fulfilling of the Law\nmerits a reward, for a reward properly pertains to the Law, yet we\nought to be mindful of the Gospel, which freely offers justification\nfor Christ's sake.  We neither observe the Law nor can observe it,\nbefore we have been reconciled to God, justified, and regenerated.\nNeither would this fulfilling of the Law please God, unless we would\nbe accepted on account of faith.  And because men are accepted on\naccount of faith, for this very reason the inchoate fulfilling of the\nLaw pleases, and has a reward in this life and after this life.\nConcerning the term reward, very many other remarks might here be\nmade derived from the nature of the Law, which as they are too\nextensive, must be explained in another connection.\n\nBut the adversaries urge that it is the prerogative of good works to\nmerit eternal life, because Paul says, Rom. 2, 5: Who will render to\nevery one according to his works.  Likewise v. 10: Glory, honor, and\npeace to every man that worketh good.  John 6, 29: They that have\ndone good [shall come forth] unto the resurrection of life.  Matt. 25\n36: I was an hungred and ye gave Me meat etc. In these and all\nsimilar passages in which works are praised in the Scriptures, it is\nnecessary to understand not only outward works, but also the faith of\nthe heart, because Scripture does not speak of hypocrisy, but of the\nrighteousness of the heart with its fruits.  Moreover, as often as\nmention is made of the Law and of works, we must know that Christ as\nMediator is not to be excluded.  For He is the end of the Law, and He\nHimself says, John 16, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing.  According to\nthis rule we have said above that all passages concerning works can\nbe judged.  Wherefore, when eternal life is granted to works, it is\ngranted to those who have been justified, because no men except\njustified men, who are led by the Spirit of Christ, can do good works;\nand without faith and Christ, as Mediator, good works do not please,\naccording to Heb. 11, 6: Without faith it is impossible to please God.\nWhen Paul says: He will render to every one according to his works,\nnot only the outward work ought to be understood, but all\nrighteousness or unrighteousness.  So: Glory to him that worketh good,\ni.e., to the righteous.  Ye gave Me meat, is cited as the fruit and\nwitness of the righteousness of the heart and of faith, and therefore\neternal life is rendered to righteousness.  [There it must certainly\nbe acknowledged that Christ means not only the works, but that He\ndesires to have the heart, which He wishes to esteem God aright, and\nto believe correctly concerning Him, namely, that it is through mercy\nthat it is pleasing to God.  Therefore Christ teaches that\neverlasting life will be given the righteous, as Christ says: The\nrighteous shall go into everlasting life.] In this way Scripture, at\nthe same time with the fruits, embraces the righteousness of the\nheart.  And it often names the fruits, in order that it may be better\nunderstood by the inexperienced, and to signify that a new life and\nregeneration, and not hypocrisy, are required.  But regeneration\noccurs, by faith, in repentance.\n\nNo sane man can judge otherwise, neither do we here affect any idle\nsubtilty, so as to separate the fruits from the righteousness of the\nheart; if the adversaries would only have conceded that the fruits\nplease because of faith, and of Christ as Mediator, and that by\nthemselves they are not worthy of grace and of eternal life.  For in\nthe doctrine of the adversaries we condemn this, that in such\npassages of Scripture, understood either in a philosophical or a\nJewish manner, they abolish the righteousness of faith, and exclude\nChrist as Mediator.  From these passages they infer that works merit\ngrace, sometimes de congruo, and at other times _de condigno_, namely,\nwhen love is added; i.e., that they justify, and because they are\nrighteousness they are worthy of eternal life.  This error manifestly\nabolishes the righteousness of faith, which believes that we have\naccess to God for Christ's sake, not for the sake of our works, and\nthat through Christ, as Priest and Mediator, we are led to the Father,\nand have a reconciled Father, as has been sufficiently said above.\nAnd this doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith is not to be\nneglected in the Church of Christ, because without it the office of\nChrist cannot be considered, and the doctrine of justification that\nis left is only a doctrine of the Law.  But we should retain the\nGospel, and the doctrine concerning the promise, granted for Christ's\nsake.\n\n[We are here not seeking an unnecessary subtilty, but there is a\ngreat reason why we must have a reliable account as regards these\nquestions.  For as soon as we concede to the adversaries that works\nmerit eternal life, they spin from this concession the awkward\nteaching that we are able to keep the Law of God, that we are not in\nneed of mercy, that we are righteous before God, that is, accepted\nwith God by our works, not for the sake of Christ, that we can also\ndo works of supererogations namely, more than the Law requires.  Thus\nthe entire teaching concerning faith is suppressed.  However, if\nthere is to be and abide a Christian Church, the pure teaching\nconcerning Christ, concerning the righteousness of faith, must surely\nbe preserved.  Therefore we must fight against these great\npharisaical errors, in order that we redeem the name of Christ and\nthe honor of the Gospel and of Christ, and preserve for Christian\nhearts a true, permanent, certain consolation.  For how is it\npossible that a heart or conscience can obtain rest, or hope for\nsalvation, when in afflictions and in the anguish of death our works\nin the judgment and sight of God utterly become dust, unless it\nbecomes certain by faith that men are saved by mercy, for Christ's\nsake, and not for the sake of their works, their fulfilling of the\nLaw?  And, indeed, St. Laurentius, when placed on the gridiron, and\nbeing tortured for Christ's sake did not think that by this work he\nwas perfectly and absolutely fulfilling the Law, that he was without\nsin, that he did not need Christ as Mediator and the mercy of God.\nHe rested his case, indeed, with the prophet, who says: Enter not\ninto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living\nbe justified, Ps. 143, 2. Nor did St. Bernard boast that his works\nwere worthy of eternal life, when he says: _Perdite vixi_, I have led\na sinful life, etc. But he boldly comforts himself, clings to the\npromise of grace, and believes that he has remission of sins and life\neternal for Christ's sake, just as Psalm 32, 1 teaches: Blessed is he\nwhose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.  And Paul says,\nRom. 4, 6: David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom\nGod imputeth righteousness without works.  Paul, then, says that he\nis blessed to whom righteousness is imputed through faith in Christ,\neven though he have not performed any good works.  That is the true,\npermanent consolation, by which hearts and consciences can be\nconfirmed and encouraged, namely that for Christ's sake, through\nfaith, the remission of sins, righteousness, and life eternal are\ngiven us.  Now, if passages which treat of works are understood in\nsuch a manner as to comprise faith, they are not opposed to our\ndoctrine.  And, indeed, it is necessary always to add faith, so as\nnot to exclude Christ as Mediator.  But the fulfilment of the Law\nfollows faith; for the Holy Ghost is present, who renews life.  Let\nthis suffice concerning this article.]\n\nWe are not, therefore, on this topic contending with the adversaries\nconcerning a small matter.  We are not seeking out idle subtilties\nwhen we find fault with them for teaching that we merit eternal life\nby works, while that faith is omitted which apprehends Christ as\nMediator.  For of this faith which believes that for Christ's sake\nthe Father is propitious to us there is not a syllable in the\nscholastics.  Everywhere they hold that we are accepted and righteous\nbecause of our works, wrought either from reason, or certainly\nwrought by the inclination of that love concerning which they speak.\nAnd yet they have certain sayings, maxims, as it were, of the old\nwriters, which they distort in interpreting.  In the schools the\nboast is made that good works please on account of grace, and that\nconfidence must be put in God's grace.  Here they interpret grace as\na habit by which we love God, as though, indeed, the ancients meant\nto say that we ought to trust in our love, of which we certainly\nexperience how small and how impure it is.  Although it is strange\nhow they bid us trust in love, since they teach us that we are not\nable to know whether it be present.  Why do they not here set forth\nthe grace, the mercy of God toward us?  And as often as mention is\nmade of this, they ought to add faith.  For the promise of God's\nmercy, reconciliation, and love towards us is not apprehended unless\nby faith.  With this view they would be right in saying that we ought\nto trust in grace, that good works please because of grace, when\nfaith apprehends grace.  In the schools the boast is also made that\nour good works avail by virtue of Christ's passion.  Well said!  But\nwhy add nothing concerning faith?  For Christ is a propitiation, as\nPaul, Rom. 3, 25, says, through faith.  When timid consciences are\ncomforted by faith, and are convinced that our sins have been blotted\nout by the death of Christ, and that God has been reconciled to us on\naccount of Christ's suffering, then, indeed, the suffering of Christ\nprofits us.  If the doctrine concerning faith be omitted, it is said\nin vain that works avail by virtue of Christ's passion.\n\nAnd very many other passages they corrupt in the schools because they\ndo not teach the righteousness of faith and because they understand\nby faith merely a knowledge of the history or of dogmas, and do not\nunderstand by it that virtue which apprehends the promise of grace\nand of righteousness, and which quickens hearts in the terrors of sin\nand of death.  When Paul says, Rom. 10, 10: With the heart man\nbelieveth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made\nunto salvation, we think that the adversaries acknowledge here that\nconfession justifies or saves, not _ex opere operato_, but only on\naccount of the faith of the heart.  And Paul thus says that\nconfession saves, in order to show what sort of faith obtains eternal\nlife; namely, that which is firm and active.  That faith, however,\nwhich does not manifest itself in confession is not firm.  Thus other\ngood works please on account of faith, as also the prayers of the\nChurch ask that all things may be accepted for Christ's sake.  They\nlikewise ask all things for Christ's sake.  For it is manifest that\nat the close of prayers this clause is always added: Through Christ,\nour Lord.  Accordingly, we conclude that we are justified before God,\nare reconciled to God and regenerated by faith, which in repentance\napprehends the promise of grace, and truly quickens the terrified\nmind, and is convinced that for Christ's sake God is reconciled and\npropitious to us.  And through this faith, says Peter, 1 Ep. 1, 5, we\nare kept unto salvation ready to be revealed.  The knowledge of this\nfaith is necessary to Christians, and brings the most abundant\nconsolation in all afflictions, and displays to us the office of\nChrist because those who deny that men are justified by faith, and\ndeny that Christ is Mediator and Propitiator, deny the promise of\ngrace and the Gospel.  They teach only the doctrine either of reason\nor of the Law concerning justification.  We have shown the origin of\nthis case, so far as can here be done, and have explained the\nobjections of the adversaries.  Good men, indeed, will easily judge\nthese things, if they will think, as often as a passage concerning\nlove or works is cited, that the Law cannot be observed without\nChrist, and that we cannot be justified from the Law, but from the\nGospel, that is, from the promise of the grace promised in Christ.\nAnd we hope that this discussion, although brief, will be profitable\nto good men for strengthening faith, and teaching and comforting\nconscience.  For we know that those things which we have said are in\nharmony with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy\nFathers, Ambrose, Augustine and very many others, and with the whole\nChurch of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is\nPropitiator and Justifier.\n\nNor are we immediately to judge that the Roman Church agrees with\neverything that the Pope, or cardinals, or bishops, or some of the\ntheologians, or monks approve.  For it is manifest that to most of\nthe pontiffs their own authority is of greater concern than the\nGospel of Christ.  And it has been ascertained that most of them are\nopenly Epicureans.  It is evident that theologians have mingled with\nChristian doctrine more of philosophy than was sufficient.  Nor ought\ntheir influence to appear so great that it will never be lawful to\ndissent from their disputations, because at the same time many\nmanifest errors are found among them, such as, that we are able from\npurely natural powers to love God above all things.  This dogma,\nalthough it is manifestly false, has produced many other errors.  For\nthe Scriptures the holy Fathers, and the judgments of all the godly\neverywhere make reply.  Therefore, even though Popes, or some\ntheologians, and monks in the Church have taught us to seek remission\nof sins, grace, and righteousness through our own works, and to\ninvent new forms of worship, which have obscured the office of Christ,\nand have made out of Christ not a Propitiator and Justifier, but\nonly a Legislator, nevertheless the knowledge of Christ has always\nremained with some godly persons.  Scripture, moreover, has predicted\nthat the righteousness of faith would be obscured in this way by\nhuman traditions and the doctrine of works.  Just as Paul often\ncomplains (cf.  Gal. 4, 9; 5, 7; Col. 2, 8, 16 sq.; 1 Tim. 4, 2 sq.,\netc.) that there were even at that time those who, instead of the\nrighteousness of faith, taught that men were reconciled to God and\njustified by their own works and own acts of worship, and not by\nfaith for Christ's sake; because men judge by nature that God ought\nto be appeased by works.  Nor does reason see a righteousness other\nthan the righteousness of the Law, understood in a civil sense.\nAccordingly, there have always existed in the world some who have\ntaught this carnal righteousness alone to the exclusion of the\nrighteousness of faith; and such teachers will also always exist.\nThe same happened among the people of Israel.  The greater part of\nthe people thought that they merited remission of sins by their works\nthey accumulated sacrifices and acts of worship.  On the contrary,\nthe prophets, in condemnation of this opinion, taught the\nrighteousness of faith.  And the occurrences among the people of\nIsrael are illustrations of those things which were to occur in the\nChurch.  Therefore, let the multitude of the adversaries, who condemn\nour doctrine, not disturb godly minds.  For their spirit can easily\nbe judged, because in some articles they have condemned truth that is\nso clear and manifest that their godlessness appears openly.  For the\nbull of Leo X condemned a very necessary article, which all\nChristians should hold and believe, namely, that we ought to trust\nthat we have been absolved not because of our contrition, but because\nof Christ's word, Matt. 16, 19: Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. And\nnow, in this assembly, the authors of the _Confutation_ have in clear\nwords condemned this, namely, that we have said that faith is a part\nof repentance, by which we obtain remission of sins, and overcome the\nterrors of sin, and conscience is rendered pacified.  Who, however,\ndoes not see that this article that by faith we obtain the remission\nof sins, is most true, most certain, and especially necessary to all\nChristians?  Who to all posterity, hearing that such a doctrine has\nbeen condemned, will judge that the authors of this condemnation had\nany knowledge of Christ?\n\nAnd concerning their spirit, a conjecture can be made from the\nunheard-of cruelty, which it is evident that they have hitherto\nexercised towards most good men.  And in this assembly we have heard\nthat a reverend father, when opinions concerning our Confession were\nexpressed, said in the senate of the Empire that no plan seemed to\nhim better than to make a reply written in blood to the Confession\nwhich we had presented written in ink.  What more cruel would\nPhalaris say?  Therefore some princes also have judged this\nexpression unworthy to be spoken in such a meeting.  Wherefore,\nalthough the adversaries claim for themselves the name of the Church,\nnevertheless we know that the Church of Christ is with those who\nteach the Gospel of Christ, not with those who defend wicked opinions\ncontrary to the Gospel, as the Lord says, John 10, 21: My sheep hear\nMy voice.  And Augustine says: The question is, Where is the Church!\nWhat, therefore, are we to do?  Are we to seek it in our own words or\nin the words of its Head our Lord Jesus Christ?  I think that we\nought to seek it in the words of Him who is Truth, and who knows His\nown body best.  Hence the judgments of our adversaries will not\ndisturb us, since they defend human opinions contrary to the Gospel,\ncontrary to the authority of the holy Fathers, who have written in\nthe Church, and contrary to the testimonies of godly minds.\n\n\n\n\nPart 11\n\n\nArticles VII and VIII: _Of the Church._\n\nThe Seventh Article of our Confession, in which we said that the\nChurch is the congregation of saints, they have condemned and have\nadded a long disquisition, that the wicked are not to be separated\nfrom the Church, since John has compared the Church to a\nthreshing-floor on which wheat and chaff are heaped together, Matt. 3,\n12, and Christ has compared it to a net in which there are both good\nand bad fishes, Matt. 13, 47. It is, verily, a true saying, namely,\nthat there is no remedy against the attacks of the slanderer.\nNothing can be spoken with such care that it can escape detraction.\nFor this reason we have added the Eighth Article, lest any one might\nthink that we separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward\nfellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to Sacraments\nadministered by hypocrites or wicked men.  Therefore there is no need\nhere of a long defense against this slander.  The Eighth Article is\nsufficient to exculpate us.  For we grant that in this life\nhypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that\nthey are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of\nthe signs of the Church, i.e., of Word, profession, and Sacraments,\nespecially if they have not been excommunicated.  Neither are the\nSacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered\nby wicked men; yea, we can even be right in using the Sacraments\nadministered by wicked men.  For Paul also predicts, 2 Thess. 2, 4,\nthat Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i.e., he will rule and\nbear office in the Church.  But the Church is not only the fellowship\nof outward objects and rites, as other governments, but it is\noriginally a fellowship of faith and of the Holy Ghost in hearts.\n[The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outward\nsigns, but it consists especially in inward communion of eternal\nblessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of the fear\nand love of God]; which fellowship nevertheless has outward marks so\nthat it can be recognized, namely, the pure doctrine of the Gospel,\nand the administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the\nGospel of Christ.  [Namely, where God's Word is pure, and the\nSacraments are administered in conformity with the same, there\ncertainly is the Church, and there are Christians.] And this Church\nalone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews [Christ is\nits Head, and] sanctifies and governs by His Spirit, as Paul\ntestifies, Eph. 1, 22 sq., when he says: And gave Him to be the Head\nover all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him\nthat filleth all in all.  Wherefore, those in whom Christ does not\nact [through His Spirit] are not the members of Christ.  This, too,\nthe adversaries acknowledge, namely, that the wicked are dead members\nof the Church.  Therefore we wonder why they have found fault with\nour description [our conclusion concerning Church] which speaks of\nliving members.  Neither have we said anything new.  Paul has defined\nthe Church precisely in the same way, Eph. 6, 25 f., that it should\nbe cleansed in order to be holy.  And he adds the outward marks, the\nWord and Sacraments.  For he says thus: Christ also loved the Church,\nand gave himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with\nthe washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself\na glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,\nbut that it should be holy and without blemish.  In the Confession we\nhave presented this sentence almost in the very words.  Thus also the\nChurch is defined by the article in the Creed which teaches us to\nbelieve that there is a holy Catholic Church.  The wicked indeed are\nnot a holy Church.  And that which follows, namely, the communion of\nsaints, seems to be added in order to explain what the Church\nsignifies, namely, the congregation of saints, who have with each\nother the fellowship of the same Gospel or doctrine [who confess one\nGospel, have the same knowledge of Christ] and of the same Holy Ghost,\nwho renews, sanctifies, and governs their hearts.\n\nAnd this article has been presented for a necessary reason.  [The\narticle of the Church Catholic or Universal, which is gathered\ntogether from every nation under the sun, is very comforting and\nhighly necessary.] We see the infinite dangers which threaten the\ndestruction of the Church.  In the Church itself, infinite is the\nmultitude of the wicked who oppress it [despise, bitterly hate, and\nmost violently persecute the Word, as, e.g., the Turks, Mohammedans,\nother tyrants, heretics, etc. For this reason the true teaching and\nthe Church are often so utterly suppressed and disappear, as if there\nwere no Church which has happened under the papacy, it often seems\nthat the Church has completely perished].  Therefore, in order that\nwe may not despair, but may know that the Church will nevertheless\nremain [until the end of the world], likewise that we may know that,\nhowever great the multitude of the wicked is, yet the Church [which\nis Christ's bride] exists, and that Christ affords those gifts which\nHe has promised to the Church, to forgive sins, to hear prayer, to\ngive the Holy Ghost, this article in the Creed presents us these\nconsolations.  And it says church Catholic, in order that we may not\nunderstand the Church to be an outward government of certain nations\n[that the Church is like any other external polity, bound to this or\nthat land, kingdom, or nation, as the Pope of Rome will say], but\nrather men scattered throughout the whole world [here and there in\nthe world, from the rising to the setting of the sun], who agree\nconcerning the Gospel, and have the same Christ, the same Holy Ghost,\nand the same Sacraments, whether they have the same or different\nhuman traditions.  And the gloss upon the Decrees says that the\nChurch in its wide sense embraces good and evil; likewise, that the\nwicked are in the Church only in name, not in fact; but that the good\nare in the Church both in fact and in name.  And to this effect there\nare many passages in the Fathers.  For Jerome says: The sinner,\ntherefore, who Has been soiled with any blotch cannot be called a\nmember of the Church of Christ, neither can he be said to be subject\nto Christ.\n\nAlthough, therefore, hypocrites and wicked men are members of this\ntrue Church according to outward rites [titles and offices], yet when\nthe Church is defined, it is necessary to define that which is the\nliving body of Christ, and which is in name and in fact the Church\n[which is called the body of Christ, and has fellowship not alone in\noutward signs, but has gifts in the heart, namely, the Holy Ghost and\nfaith].  And for this there are many reasons.  For it is necessary to\nunderstand what it is that principally makes us members, and that,\nliving members, of the Church.  If we will define the Church only as\nan outward polity of the good and wicked, men will not understand\nthat the kingdom of Christ is righteousness of heart and the gift of\nthe Holy Ghost [that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, as\nnevertheless it is, that therein Christ inwardly rules, strengthens,\nand comforts hearts, and imparts the Holy Ghost and various spiritual\ngifts], but they will judge that it is only the outward observance of\ncertain forms of worship and rites.  Likewise, what difference will\nthere be between the people of the Law and the Church if the Church\nis an outward polity?  But Paul distinguishes the Church from the\npeople of the Law thus, that the Church is a spiritual people, i.e.,\nthat it has been distinguished from the heathen not by civil rites\n[not in the polity and civil affairs], but that it is the true people\nof God, regenerated by the Holy Ghost.  Among the people of the Law,\napart from the promise of Christ, also the carnal seed [all those who\nby nature were born Jews and Abraham's seed] had promises concerning\ncorporeal things, of government, etc. And because of these even the\nwicked among them were called the people of God, because God had\nseparated this carnal seed from other nations by certain outward\nordinances and promises; and yet, these wicked persons did not please\nGod.  But the Gospel [which is preached in the Church] brings not\nmerely the shadow of eternal things, but the eternal things\nthemselves, the Holy Ghost and righteousness, by which we are\nrighteous before God.  [But every true Christian is even here upon\nearth partaker of eternal blessings, even of eternal comfort, of\neternal life, and of the Holy Ghost, and of righteousness which is\nfrom God, until he will be completely saved in the world to come.]\n\nTherefore, only those are the people, according to the Gospel, who\nreceive this promise of the Spirit.  Besides, the Church is the\nkingdom of Christ, distinguished from the kingdom of the devil.  It\nis certain, however, that the wicked are in the power of the devil,\nand members of the kingdom of the devil, as Paul teaches, Eph. 2, 2,\nwhen he says that the devil now worketh in the children of\ndisobedience.  And Christ says to the Pharisees, who certainly had\noutward fellowship with the Church, i.e., with the saints among the\npeople of the Law (for they held office, sacrificed, and taught): Ye\nare of your father, the devil, John 8, 44. Therefore, the Church,\nwhich is truly the kingdom of Christ is properly the congregation of\nsaints.  For the wicked are ruled by the devil, and are captives of\nthe devil; they are not ruled by the Spirit of Christ.\n\nBut what need is there of words in a manifest matter?  [However, the\nadversaries contradict the plain truth.] If the Church, which is\ntruly the kingdom of Christ, is distinguished from the kingdom of the\ndevil, it follows necessarily that the wicked, since they are in the\nkingdom of the devil, are not the Church; although in this life,\nbecause the kingdom of Christ has not yet been revealed; they are\nmingled with the Church, and hold offices [as teachers, and other\noffices] in the Church.  Neither are the wicked the kingdom of Christ,\nfor the reason that the revelation has not yet been made.  For that\nis always the kingdom which He quickens by His Spirit, whether it be\nrevealed or be covered by the cross; just as He who has now been\nglorified is the same Christ who was before afflicted.  And with this\nclearly agree the parables of Christ, who says, Matt. 13, 38, that\nthe good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the\nchildren of the Wicked One.  The field, He says, is the world, not\nthe Church.  Thus John [Matt. 3,12: He will throughly purge His floor,\nand gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff]\nspeaks concerning the whole race of the Jews, and says that it will\ncome to pass that the true Church will be separated from that people.\nTherefore, this passage is more against the adversaries than in\nfavor of them, because it shows that the true and spiritual people is\nto be separated from the carnal people.  Christ also speaks of the\noutward appearance of the Church when He says, Matt. 13, 47: The\nkingdom of heaven is like unto a net, likewise, to ten virgins; and\nHe teaches that the Church has been covered by a multitude of evils,\nin order that this stumbling-block may not offend the pious; likewise,\nin order that we may know that the Word and Sacraments are\nefficacious even when administered by the wicked.  And meanwhile He\nteaches that these godless men, although they have the fellowship of\noutward signs, are nevertheless not the true kingdom of Christ and\nmembers of Christ; for they are members of the kingdom of the devil.\nNeither, indeed, are we dreaming of a Platonic state, as some\nwickedly charge, but we say that this Church exists, namely, the\ntruly believing and righteous men scattered throughout the whole\nworld [We are speaking not of an imaginary Church, which is to be\nfound nowhere; but we say and know certainly that this Church,\nwherein saints live, is and abides truly upon earth; namely, that\nsome of God's children are here and there in all the world, in\nvarious kingdoms, islands, lands, and cities, from the rising of the\nsun to its setting, who have truly learned to know Christ and His\nGospel.] And we add the marks: the pure doctrine of the Gospel [the\nministry or the Gospel] and the Sacraments.  And this Church is\nproperly the pillar of the truth, 1 Tim. 3, 15. For it retains the\npure Gospel, and, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 11 [: \"Other foundation can\nno man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ\"], the foundation,\ni.e., the true knowledge of Christ and faith.  Although among these\n[in the body which is built upon the true foundation, i.e., upon\nChrist and faith] there are also many weak persons, who build upon\nthe foundation stubble that will perish, i.e., certain unprofitable\nopinions [some human thoughts and opinions], which, nevertheless,\nbecause they do not overthrow the foundation are both forgiven them\nand also corrected.  And the writings of the holy Fathers testify\nthat sometimes even they built stubble upon the foundation, but that\nthis did not overthrow their faith.  But most of those errors which\nour adversaries defend, overthrow faith, as, their condemnation of\nthe article concerning the remission of sins, in which we say that\nthe remission of sins is received by faith.  Likewise it is a\nmanifest and pernicious error when the adversaries teach that men\nmerit the remission of sins by love to God, prior to grace.  [In the\nplace of Christ they set up their works, orders, masses, just as the\nJews, the heathen, and the Turks intend to be saved by their works.]\nFor this also is to remove \"the foundation,\" i.e., Christ.  Likewise,\nwhat need will there be of faith if the Sacraments justify _ex opere\noperato_, without a good disposition on the part of the one using\nthem? [without faith.  Now, a person that does not regard faith as\nnecessary has already lost Christ.  Again, they set up the worship of\nsaints, call upon them instead of Christ, the Mediator, etc.] But\njust as the Church has the promise that it will always have the Holy\nGhost, so it has also the threatenings that there will be wicked\nteachers and wolves.  But that is the Church in the proper sense\nwhich has the Holy Ghost.  Although wolves and wicked teachers become\nrampant [rage and do injury] in the Church, yet they are not properly\nthe kingdom of Christ.  Just as Lyra also testifies, when he says:\nThe Church does not consist of men with respect to power, or\necclesiastical or secular dignity, because many princes and\narchbishops and others of lower rank have been found to have\napostatized from the faith.  Therefore, the Church consists of those\npersons in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith and\ntruth.  What else have we said in our Confession than what Lyra here\nsays [in terms so clear that he could not have spoken more clearly]?\n\nBut the adversaries perhaps require [a new Roman definition], that\nthe Church be defined thus, namely, that it is the supreme outward\nmonarchy of the whole world, in which the Roman pontiff necessarily\nhas unquestioned power, which no one is permitted to dispute or\ncensure [no matter whether he uses it rightly, or misuses it], to\nframe articles of faith; to abolish, according to his pleasure, the\nScriptures [to pervert and interpret them contrary to all divine law,\ncontrary to his own decretals, contrary to all imperial rights, as\noften, to as great an extent, and whenever it pleases him, to sell\nindulgences and dispensations for money]; to appoint rites of worship\nand sacrifices; likewise, to frame such laws as he may wish, and to\ndispense and exempt from whatever laws he may wish, divine, canonical,\nor civil; and that from him [as from the vicegerent of Christ] the\nEmperor and all kings receive, according to the command of Christ,\nthe power and right to hold their kingdoms, from whom, since the\nFather has subjected all things to Him, it must be understood, this\nright was transferred to the Pope; therefore the Pope must\nnecessarily be [a God on earth, the supreme Majesty,] lord of the\nwhole world, of all the kingdoms of the world, of all things private\nand public, and must have absolute power in temporal and spiritual\nthings, and both swords, the spiritual and temporal Besides this\ndefinition, not of the Church of Christ but of the papal kingdom, has\nas its authors not only the canonists, but also Daniel 11 36 ff.\n[Daniel, the prophet, represents Antichrist in this way.]\n\nNow, if we would define the Church in this way [that it is such pomp,\nas is exhibited in the Pope's rule], we would perhaps have fairer\njudges.  For there are many things extant written extravagantly and\nwickedly concerning the power of the Pope of Rome on account of which\nno one has ever been arraigned.  We alone are blamed, because we\nproclaim the beneficence of Christ [and write and preach the clear\nword and teaching of the apostles], that by faith in Christ we obtain\nremission of sins, and not by [hypocrisy or innumerable] rites of\nworship devised by the Pope.  Moreover, Christ, the prophets, and the\napostles define the Church of Christ far otherwise than as the papal\nkingdom.  Neither must we transfer to the Popes what belongs to the\ntrue Church, namely, that they are pillars of the truth, that they do\nnot err.  For how many of them care for the Gospel or judge that it\n[one little page, one letter of it] is worth being read?  Many [in\nItaly and elsewhere] even publicly ridicule all religions, or, if\nthey approve anything, they approve such things only as are in\nharmony with human reason, and regard the rest fabulous and like the\ntragedies of the poets.  Wherefore we hold, according Scriptures,\nthat the Church, properly so called, is the congregation of saints\n[of those here and there in the world], who truly believe the Gospel\nof Christ, and have the Holy Ghost.  And yet we confess that in this\nlife many hypocrites and wicked men, mingled with these, have the\nfellowship of outward signs who are members of the Church according\nto this fellowship of outward signs, and accordingly bear offices in\nthe Church [preach, administer the Sacraments, and bear the title and\nname of Christians].  Neither does the fact that the sacraments are\nadministered by the unworthy detract from their efficacy, because, on\naccount of the call of the Church, they represent the person of\nChrist, and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies,\nLuke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me.  [Thus even Judas was\nsent to preach.] When they offer the Word of God, when they offer the\nSacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ.  Those\nwords of Christ teach us not to be offended by the unworthiness of\nthe ministers.\n\nBut concerning this matter we have spoken with sufficient clearness\nin the Confession that we condemn the Donatists and Wyclifites, who\nthought that men sinned when they received the sacraments from the\nunworthy in the Church.  These things seem, for the present, to be\nsufficient for the defense of the description of the Church which we\nhave presented.  Neither do we see how, when the Church, properly so\ncalled, is named the body of Christ, it should be described otherwise\nthan we have described it.  For it is evident that the wicked belong\nto the kingdom and body of the devil, who impels and holds captive\nthe wicked.  These things are clearer than the light of noonday,\nhowever, if the adversaries still continue to pervert them, we will\nnot hesitate to reply at greater length.\n\nThe adversaries condemn also the part of the Seventh Article in which\nwe said that \"to the unity of the Church it is sufficient to agree\nconcerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the\nSacraments; nor is it necessary that human traditions rites or\nceremonies instituted by men should be alike everywhere.\" Here they\ndistinguish between universal and particular rites, and approve our\narticle if it be understood concerning particular rites, they do not\nreceive it concerning universal rites.  [That is a fine clumsy\ndistinction!] We do not sufficiently understand what the adversaries\nmean.  We are speaking of true, i.e., of spiritual unity [we say that\nthose are one harmonious Church who believe in one Christ, who have\none Gospel, one Spirit, one faith, the same Sacraments; and we are\nspeaking, therefore, of spiritual unity], without which faith in the\nheart, or righteousness of heart before God cannot exist.  For this\nwe say that similarity of human rites, whether universal or\nparticular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith is\nnot a righteousness bound to certain traditions [outward ceremonies\nof human ordinances] as the righteousness of the Law was bound to the\nMosaic ceremonies, because this righteousness of the heart is a\nmatter that quickens the heart.  To this quickening, human traditions,\nwhether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neither\nare they effects of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, the\nfear of God, love to one's neighbor, and the works of love.\n\nNeither were the reasons trifling why we presented this article.  For\nit is evident that many [great errors and] foolish opinions\nconcerning traditions had crept into the Church.  Some thought that\nhuman traditions were necessary services for meriting justification\n[that without such human ordinances Christian holiness and faith are\nof no avail before God; also that no one can be a Christian unless he\nobserve such traditions, although they are nothing but an outward\nregulation].  And afterwards they disputed how it came to pass that\nGod was worshiped with such variety, as though, indeed, these\nobservances were acts of worship, and not rather outward and\npolitical ordinances, pertaining in no respect to righteousness of\nheart or the worship of God, which vary, according to the\ncircumstances, for certain probable reasons, sometimes in one way and\nat other times in another [as in worldly governments one state has\ncustoms different from another].  Likewise some Churches have\nexcommunicated others because of such traditions, as the observance\nof Easter, pictures, and the like.  Hence the ignorant have supposed\nthat faith, or the righteousness of the heart before God, cannot\nexist [and that no one can be a Christian] without these observances.\nFor many foolish writings of the Summists and of others concerning\nthis matter are extant.\n\nBut just as the dissimilar length of day and night does not injure\nthe unity of the Church, so we believe that the true unity of the\nChurch is not injured by dissimilar rites instituted by men; although\nit is pleasing to us that, for the sake of tranquillity [unity and\ngood order], universal rites be observed just as also in the churches\nwe willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord's Day, and other\nmore eminent festival days.  And with a very grateful mind we embrace\nthe profitable and ancient ordinances, especially since they contain\na discipline by which it is profitable to educate and train the\npeople and those who are ignorant [the young people].  But now we are\nnot discussing the question whether it be of advantage to observe\nthem on account of peace or bodily profit.  Another matter is treated\nof.  For the question at issue is, whether the observances of human\ntraditions are acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God.\nThis is the point to be judged in this controversy and when this is\ndecided, it can afterwards be judged whether to the true unity of the\nChurch it is necessary that human traditions should everywhere be\nalike.  For if human traditions be not acts of worship necessary for\nrighteousness before God, it follows that also they can be righteous\nand be the sons of God who have not the traditions which have been\nreceived elsewhere.  F.i., if the style of German clothing is not\nworship of God, necessary for righteousness before God, it follows\nthat men can be righteous and sons of God and the Church of Christ,\neven though they use a costume that is not German, but French.\n\nPaul clearly teaches this to the Colossians, 2,16.17: Let no man,\ntherefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an\nholy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a\nshadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.  Likewise, v. 20\nsqq.: If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why,\nas though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch\nnot; taste not; handle not; which are to perish with the using),\nafter the commandments and doctrines of men?  Which things have,\nindeed, a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility.  For the\nmeaning is: Since righteousness of the heart is a spiritual matter,\nquickening hearts, and it is evident that human traditions do not\nquicken hearts and are not effects of the Holy Ghost, as are love to\none's neighbor, chastity, etc., and are not instruments through which\nGod moves hearts to believe, as are the divinely given Word and\nSacraments, but are usages with regard to matters that pertain in no\nrespect to the heart, which perish with the using, we must not\nbelieve that they are necessary for righteousness before God.  [They\nare nothing eternal, hence, they do not procure eternal life, but are\nan external bodily discipline, which does not change the heart.] And\nto the same effect he says, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God is not\nmeat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.\nBut there is no need to cite many testimonies, since they are\neverywhere obvious in the Scriptures, and in our Confession we have\nbrought together very many of them, in the latter articles.  And the\npoint to be decided in this controversy must be repeated after a\nwhile, namely, whether human traditions be acts of worship necessary\nfor righteousness before God.  There we will discuss this matter more\nfully.\n\nThe adversaries say that universal traditions are to be observed\nbecause they are supposed to have been handed down by the apostles.\nWhat religious men they are!  They wish that the rites derived from\nthe apostles be retained, they do not wish the doctrine of the\napostles to be retained.  They must judge concerning these rites just\nas the apostles themselves judge in their writings.  For the apostles\ndid not wish us to believe that through such rites we are justified,\nthat such rites are necessary for righteousness before God.  The\napostles did not wish to impose such a burden upon consciences; they\ndid not wish to place righteousness and sin in the observance of days,\nfood, and the like.  Yea, Paul calls such opinions doctrines of\ndevils, 1 Tim. 4, 1. Therefore the will and advice of the apostles\nought to be derived from their writings; it is not enough to mention\ntheir example.  They observed certain days, not because this\nobservance was necessary for justification, but in order that the\npeople might know at what time they should assemble.  They observed\nalso certain other rites and orders of lessons whenever they\nassembled.  The people [In the beginning of the Church the Jews who\nhad become Christians] retained also from the customs of the Fathers\n[from their Jewish festivals and ceremonies], as is commonly the case,\ncertain things which, being somewhat changed, the apostles adapted\nto the history of the Gospel as the Passover, Pentecost, so that not\nonly by teaching, but also through these examples they might hand\ndown to posterity the memory of the most important subjects.  But if\nthese things were handed down as necessary for justification, why\nafterwards did the bishops change many things in these very matters?\nFor, if they were matters of divine right, it was not lawful to\nchange them by human authority.  Before the Synod of Nice some\nobserved Easter at one time and others at another time.  Neither did\nthis want of uniformity injure faith.  Afterward the plan was adopted\nby which our Passover [Easter] did not fall at the same time as that\nof the Jewish Passover.  But the apostles had commanded the Churches\nto observe the Passover with the brethren who had been converted from\nJudaism.  Therefore, after the Synod of Nice, certain nations\ntenaciously held to the custom of observing the Jewish time.  But the\napostles, by this decree, did not wish to impose necessity upon the\nChurches, the words of the decree testify.  For it bids no one to be\ntroubled, even though his brethren, in observing Easter, do not\ncompute the time aright.  The words of the decree are extant in\nEpiphanius: Do not calculate, but celebrate it whenever your brethren\nof the circumcision do; celebrate it at the same time with them, and\neven though they may have erred, let not this be a care to you..\nEpiphanius writes that these are the words of the apostles presented\nin a decree concerning Easter, in which the discreet reader can\neasily judge that the apostles wished to free the people from the\nfoolish opinion of a fixed time, when they prohibit them from being\ntroubled, even though a mistake should be made in the computation.\nSome, moreover in the East, who were called, from the author of the\ndogma, Audians, contended, on account of this decree of the apostles,\nthat the Passover should be observed with the Jews.  Epiphanius, in\nrefuting them, praises the decree and says that it contains nothing\nwhich deviates from the faith or rule of the Church, and blames the\nAudians because they do not understand aright the expression, and\ninterprets it in the sense in which we interpret it because the\napostles did not consider it of any importance at what time the\nPassover should be observed, but because prominent brethren had been\nconverted from the Jews who observed their custom, and, for the sake\nof harmony, wished the rest to follow their example And the apostles\nwisely admonished the reader neither to remove the liberty of the\nGospel, nor to impose necessity upon consciences, because they add\nthat they should not be troubled even though there should be an error\nin making the computation.\n\nMany things of this class can be gathered from the histories, in\nwhich it appears that a want of uniformity in human observances does\nnot injure the unity of faith [separate no one from the universal\nChristian Church].  Although, what need is there of discussion?  The\nadversaries do not at all understand what the righteousness of faith\nis, what the kingdom of Christ is, when they judge that uniformity of\nobservances in food, days, clothing, and the like, which do not have\nthe command of God, is necessary.  But look at the religious men, our\nadversaries.  For the unity of the Church they require uniform human\nobservances, although they themselves have changed the ordinance of\nChrist in the use of the Supper, which certainly was a universal\nordinance before.  But if universal ordinances are so necessary, why\ndo they themselves change the ordinance of Christ's Supper, which is\nnot human, but divine?  But concerning this entire controversy we\nshall have to speak at different times below.\n\nThe entire Eighth Article has been approved, in which we confess that\nhypocrites and wicked persons have been mingled with the Church, and\nthat the Sacraments are efficacious even though dispensed by wicked\nministers, because the ministers act in the place of Christ, and do\nnot represent their own persons, according to Luke 10, 16: He that\nheareth you heareth Me.  Impious teachers are to be deserted [are not\nto be received or heard], because these do not act any longer in the\nplace of Christ, but are antichrists.  And Christ says Matt. 7, 15:\nBeware of false prophets.  And Paul, Gal. 1, 9: If any man preach any\nother gospel unto you, let him be accursed.\n\nMoreover, Christ has warned us in His parables concerning the Church,\nthat when offended by the private vices, whether of priests or people,\nwe should not excite schisms, as the Donatists have wickedly done.\nAs to those, however, who have excited schisms, because they denied\nthat priests are permitted to hold possessions and property, we hold\nthat they are altogether seditious.  For to hold property is a civil\nordinance.  It is lawful, however, for Christians to use civil\nordinances, just as they use the air, the light, food, drink.  For as\nthis order of the world and fixed movements of the heavenly bodies\nare truly God's ordinances and these are preserved by God, so lawful\ngovernments are truly God's ordinances, and are preserved and\ndefended by God against the devil.\n\n\n\n\nPart 12\n\n\nArticle IX: _Of Baptism._\n\nThe Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism\nis necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and\nthat the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and\neffectual to salvation.  And since the Gospel is taught among us\npurely and diligently, by God's favor we receive also from it this\nfruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not\ngained ground in our Churches], because the people have been\nfortified by God's Word against the wicked and seditious faction of\nthese robbers.  And as we condemn quite a number of other errors of\nthe Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the\nbaptism of little children is unprofitable.  For it is very certain\nthat the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that\nthe divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone\nto the old, but also to children].  It does not, however, pertain to\nthose who are outside of Christ's Church where there is neither Word\nnor Sacraments because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the\nWord and Sacraments.  Therefore it is necessary to baptize little\nchildren, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them,\naccording to Christ's command, Matt. 28, 19: Baptize all nations.\nJust as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to\nall, to men, women, children, infants.  It clearly follows, therefore,\nthat infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism salvation [the\nuniversal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered.  Secondly, it\nis manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children.\nTherefore the Anabaptists, who condemn the baptism of little children,\nbelieve wickedly.  That God, however, approves of the baptism of\nlittle children is shown--by this, namely, that God gives the Holy\nGhost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in\nchildhood].  For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost\nwould be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would\nbe no Church.  [For there have been many holy men in the Church who\nhave not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can\nsufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and\nfanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.\n\n\n\n\nPart 13\n\n\nArticle X: _Of the Holy Supper._\n\nThe Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we\nbelieve, that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are\ntruly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those\nthings which are seen, bread and wine to those who receive the\nSacrament.  This belief we constantly defend as the subject has been\ncarefully examined and considered.  For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10,\n16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord's body, etc., it\nwould follow, if the Lord's body were not truly present, that the\nbread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of\nChrist.  And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church\naffirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both\nnow believes, and formerly believed, the same.  For the canon of the\nMass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays\nthat the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.\nAnd Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says\ndistinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into\nflesh.  And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which\nhe teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper.  For\nhe says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined\nspiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love.  But that we\nhave no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this\nindeed we entirely deny.  And this, we say, is altogether foreign to\nthe divine Scriptures.  For who has doubted that Christ is in this\nmanner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for\nourselves?  Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10, 17; Rom. 12, 5; Gal. 3, 28:\nWe are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are,\nnevertheless, one in Him; for we are all partakers of that one bread.\nDoes he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is\nunknown to us?  Since this is in us, does it not also, by the\ncommunication of Christ's flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?\nAnd a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not\nonly according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural\nparticipation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake\na discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty\ndoes not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may\nread them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine\nreceived in the entire Church, that in the Lord's Supper the body and\nblood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly\ntendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine.  And we\nspeak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know\nthat death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6, 9.\n\n\n\n\nPart 14\n\n\nArticle XI: _Of Confession._\n\nThe Eleventh Article, Of Retaining Absolutism in the Church, is\napproved.  But they add a correction in reference to confession,\nnamely, that the regulation headed, _Omnis Utriusque_, be observed,\nand that both annual confession be made, and, although all sins\ncannot be enumerated, nevertheless diligence be employed in order\nthat they be recollected, and those which can be recalled be\nrecounted.  Concerning this entire article, we will speak at greater\nlength after a while, when we will explain our entire opinion\nconcerning repentance.  It is well known that we have so elucidated\nand extolled [that we have preached, written, and taught in a manner\nso Christian, correct, and pure] the benefit of absolution and the\npower of the keys that many distressed consciences have derived\nconsolation from our doctrine, after they heard that it is the\ncommand of God, nay, rather the very voice of the Gospel, that we\nshould believe the absolution, and regard it as certain that the\nremission of sins is freely granted us for Christ's sake, and that we\nshould believe that by this faith we are truly reconciled to God [as\nthough we heard a voice from heaven].  This belief has encouraged\nmany godly minds, and, in the beginning, brought Luther the highest\ncommendation from all good men, since it shows consciences sure and\nfirm consolation because previously the entire power of absolution\n[entire necessary doctrine of repentance] had been kept suppressed by\ndoctrines concerning works, since the sophists and monks taught\nnothing of faith and free remission [but pointed men to their own\nworks, from which nothing but despair enters alarmed consciences].\n\nBut with respect to the time, certainly most men in our churches use\nthe Sacraments, absolution and the Lord's Supper, frequently in a\nyear.  And those who teach of the worth and fruits of the Sacraments\nspeak in such a manner as to invite the people to use the Sacraments\nfrequently.  For concerning this subject there are many things extant\nwritten by our theologians in such a manner that the adversaries, if\nthey are good men, will undoubtedly approve and praise them.\nExcommunication is also pronounced against the openly wicked [those\nwho live in manifest vices, fornication, adultery, etc.] and the\ndespisers of the Sacraments.  These things are thus done both\naccording to the Gospel and according to the old canons.  But a fixed\ntime is not prescribed, because all are not ready in like manner at\nthe same time.  Yea, if all are to come at the same time, they cannot\nbe heard and instructed in order [so diligently].  And the old canons\nand Fathers do not appoint a fixed time.  The canon speaks only thus:\nIf any enter the Church and be found never to commune, let them be\nadmonished that, if they do not commune, they come to repentance.  If\nthey commune [if they wish to be regarded as Christians], let them\nnot be expelled; if they fail to do so, let them be excommunicated.\nChrist [Paul] says, I Cor. 11, 29, that those who eat unworthily eat\njudgment to themselves.  The pastors, accordingly, do not compel\nthose who are not qualified to use the Sacraments.\n\nConcerning the enumeration of sins in confession, men are taught in\nsuch a way as not to ensnare their consciences.  Although it is of\nadvantage to accustom inexperienced men to enumerate some things\n[which worry them], in order that they may be the more readily taught,\nyet we are now discussing what is necessary according to divine Law.\nTherefore, the adversaries ought not to cite for us the regulation\n_Omnis Utriusque_, which is not unknown to us, but they ought to show\nfrom the divine Law that an enumeration of sins is necessary for\nobtaining their remission.  The entire Church, throughout all Europe,\nknows what sort of snares this point of the regulation, which\ncommands that all sins be confessed, has east upon consciences.\nNeither has the text by itself as much disadvantage as was afterwards\nadded by the Summists, who collect the circumstances of the sins.\nWhat labyrinths were there!  How great a torture for the best minds!\nFor the licentious and profane were in no way moved by these\ninstruments of terror.  Afterwards what tragedies [what jealousy and\nhatred] did the questions concerning one's own priest excite among\nthe pastors and brethren [monks of various orders], who then were by\nno means brethren when they were warring concerning jurisdiction of\nconfessions! [for all brotherliness, all friendship, ceased, when the\nquestion was concerning authority and confessor's fees.] We,\ntherefore, believe that, according to divine Law, the enumeration of\nsins is not necessary.  This also is pleasing to Panormitanus and\nvery many other learned jurisconsults.  Nor do we wish to impose\nnecessity upon the consciences of our people by the regulation _Omnis\nUtriusque_, of which we judge, just as of other human traditions,\nthat they are not acts of worship necessary for justification.  And\nthis regulation commands an impossible matter, that we should confess\nall sins.  It is evident, however, that most sins we neither remember\nnor understand [nor do we indeed even see the greatest sins],\naccording to Ps. 19, 13: Who can understand his errors?\n\nIf the pastors are good men, they will know how far it is of\nadvantage to examine [the young and otherwise] inexperienced persons\nbut we do not wish to sanction the torture [the tyranny of\nconsciences] of the Summists, which notwithstanding would have been\nless intolerable if they had added one word concerning faith, which\ncomforts and encourages consciences.  Now, concerning this faith\nwhich obtains the remission of sins, there is not a syllable in so\ngreat a mass of regulations, glosses, summaries, books of confession.\nChrist is nowhere read there.  [Nobody will there read a word by\nwhich he could learn to know Christ, or what Christ is.] Only the\nlists of sins are read [to the end of gathering and accumulating sins,\nand this would be of some value if they understood those sins which\nGod regards as such].  And the greater part is occupied with sins\nagainst human traditions, and this is most vain.  This doctrine has\nforced to despair many godly minds, which were not able to find rest,\nbecause they believed that by divine Law an enumeration was necessary,\nand yet they experienced that it was impossible.  But other faults\nof no less moment inhere in the doctrine of the adversaries\nconcerning repentance, which we will now recount.\n\n\n\n\nPart 15\n\n\nArticle XII (V): _Of Repentance._\n\nIn the Twelfth Article they approve of the first part, in which we\nset forth that such as have fallen after baptism may obtain remission\nof sins at whatever time, and as often as they are converted.  They\ncondemn the second part, in which we say that the parts of repentance\nare contrition and faith [a penitent, contrite heart, and faith,\nnamely that I receive the forgiveness of sins through Christ].  [Hear,\nnow, what it is that the adversaries deny.] They [without shame]\ndeny that faith is the second part of repentance.  What are we to do\nhere, O Charles, thou most invincible Emperor?  The very voice of the\nGospel is this, that by faith we obtain the remission of sins.  [This\nword is not our word but the voice and word of Jesus Christ, our\nSavior.] This voice of the Gospel these writers of the _Confutation_\ncondemn.  We, therefore, can in no way assent to the _Confutation_.\nWe cannot condemn the voice of the Gospel, so salutary and abounding\nin consolation.  What else is the denial that by faith we obtain\nremission of sins than to treat the blood and death of Christ with\nscorn?  We therefore beseech thee, O Charles most invincible Emperor,\npatiently and diligently to hear and examine this most important\nsubject, which contains the chief topic of the Gospel, and the true\nknowledge of Christ, and the true worship of God [these great, most\nexalted and important matters which concern our own souls and\nconsciences yea, also the entire faith of Christians, the entire\nGospel, the knowledge of Christ, and what is highest and greatest,\nnot only in this perishable, but also in the future life: the\neverlasting welfare or perdition of us all before God].  For all good\nmen will ascertain that especially on this subject we have taught\nthings that are true, godly, salutary, and necessary for the whole\nChurch of Christ [things of the greatest significance to all pious\nhearts in the entire Christian Church on which their whole salvation\nand welfare depends, and without instruction on which there can be or\nremain no ministry, no Christian Church].  They will ascertain from\nthe writings of our theologians that very much light has been added\nto the Gospel, and many pernicious errors have been corrected, by\nwhich, through the opinions of the scholastics and canonists, the\ndoctrine of repentance was previously covered.\n\nBefore we come to the defense of our position, we must say this first:\nAll good men of all ranks, and also of the theological rank\nundoubtedly confess that before the writings of Luther appeared, the\ndoctrine of repentance was very much confused.  The books of the\nSententiaries are extant, in which there are innumerable questions\nwhich no theologians were ever able to explain satisfactorily.  The\npeople were able neither to comprehend the sum of the matter, nor to\nsee what things especially were required in repentance, where peace\nof conscience was to be sought for.  Let any one of the adversaries\ncome and tell us when remission of sins takes place.  O good God,\nwhat darkness there is!  They doubt whether it is in attrition or in\ncontrition that remission of sins occurs.  And if it occurs on\naccount of contrition, what need is there of absolution, what does\nthe power of the keys effect, if sins have been already remitted?\nHere, indeed, they also labor much more, and wickedly detract from\nthe power of the keys.  Some dream that by the power of the keys\nguilt is not remitted, but that eternal punishments are changed into\ntemporal.  Thus the most salutary power would be the ministry, not of\nlife and the Spirit, but only of wrath and punishments.  Others,\nnamely, the more cautious imagine that by the power of the keys sins\nare remitted before the Church and not before God.  This also is a\npernicious error.  For if the power of the keys does not console us\nbefore God, what, then, will pacify the conscience?  Still more\ninvolved is what follows.  They teach that by contrition we merit\ngrace.  In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and\nJudas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not\nobtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to\nthe Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support\nhimself by the Gospel and promise of Christ.  For faith shows the\ndistinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter.  But the\nadversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love\nGod, but feared the punishments.  [Is not this teaching uncertain and\nimproper things concerning repentance?] When, however, will a\nterrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great\nterrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which\nthose certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decide\nwhether it fears God for His own sake [out of love it fears God, as\nits God], or is fleeing from eternal punishments?  [These people may\nnot have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle\nwords and make distinctions according to their dreams.  But in the\nheart when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite\ndifferently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry\nsyllables and words.] These great emotions can be distinguished in\nletters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these\nsweet sophists dream.  Here we appeal to the judgments of all good\nand wise men [who also desire to know the truth].  They undoubtedly\nwill confess that these discussions in the writings of the\nadversaries are very confused and intricate.  And nevertheless the\nmost important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel,\nthe remission of sins.  This entire doctrine concerning these\nquestions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of the\nadversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefit\nof Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith [to\ninexpressible injury of conscience].\n\nThese things occur in the first act.  What when they come to\nconfession?  What a work there is in the endless enumeration of sins\nwhich is nevertheless, in great part, devoted to those against human\ntraditions!  And in order that good minds may by this means be the\nmore tortured, they falsely assert that this enumeration is of divine\nright.  And while they demand this enumeration under the pretext of\ndivine right, in the mean time they speak coldly concerning\nabsolution which is truly of divine right.  They falsely assert that\nthe Sacrament itself confers grace _ex opere operato_ without a good\ndisposition on the part of the one using it; no mention is made of\nfaith apprehending the absolution and consoling the conscience.  This\nis truly what is generally called _apienai pro tohn mustehriohn_\ndeparting before the mysteries.  [Such people are called genuine Jews.]\n\nThe third act [of this play] remains, concerning satisfactions.  But\nthis contains the most confused discussions.  They imagine that\neternal punishments are commuted to the punishments of purgatory, and\nteach that a part of these is remitted by the power of the keys, and\nthat a part is to be redeemed by means of satisfactions.  They add\nfurther that satisfactions ought to be works of supererogation, and\nthey make these consist of most foolish observances, such as\npilgrimages, rosaries, or similar observances which do not have the\ncommand of God.  Then, just as they redeem purgatory by means of\nsatisfactions, so a scheme of redeeming satisfactions which was most\nabundant in revenue [which became quite a profitable, lucrative\nbusiness and a grand fair] was devised.  For they sell [without\nshame] indulgences which they interpret as remissions of\nsatisfactions.  And this revenue [this trafficking, this fair,\nconducted so shamelessly] is not only from the living, but is much\nmore ample from the dead.  Nor do they redeem the satisfactions of\nthe dead only by indulgences, but also by the sacrifice of the Mass.\nIn a word, the subject of satisfactions is infinite.  Among these\nscandals (for we cannot enumerate all things) and doctrines of devils\nlies buried the doctrine of the righteousness of faith in Christ and\nthe benefit of Christ.  Wherefore, all good men understand that the\ndoctrine of the sophists and canonists concerning repentance has been\ncensured for a useful and godly purpose.  For the following dogmas\nare clearly false, and foreign not only to Holy Scripture, but also\nto the Church Fathers:-I. That from the divine covenant we merit\ngrace by good works wrought without grace.\n\nII. That by attrition we merit grace.\n\nIII. That for the blotting out of sin the mere detestation of the\ncrime is sufficient.\n\nIV. That on account of contrition, and not by faith in Christ, we\nobtain remission of sins.\n\nV. That the power of the keys avails for the remission of sins, not\nbefore God, but before the Church.\n\nVI. That by the power of the keys sins are not remitted before God,\nbut that the power of the keys has been instituted to commute eternal\nto temporal punishments, to impose upon consciences certain\nsatisfactions, to institute new acts of worship, and to obligate\nconsciences to such satisfactions and acts of worship.\n\nVII. That according to divine right the enumeration of offenses in\nconfession, concerning which the adversaries teach, is necessary.\n\nVIII. That canonical satisfactions are necessary for redeeming the\npunishment of purgatory, or they profit as a compensation for the\nblotting out of guilt.  For thus uninformed persons understand it.\n[For, although in the schools satisfactions are made to apply only to\nthe punishment, everybody thinks that remission of guilt is thereby\nmerited.]\n\nIX. That the reception of the sacrament of repentance _ex opere\noperato_, without a good disposition on the part of the one using it,\ni.e., without faith in Christ, obtains grace.\n\nX. That by the power of the keys our souls are freed from purgatory\nthrough indulgences\n\nXI. That in the reservation of cases not only canonical punishment,\nbut the guilt also, ought to be reserved in reference to one who is\ntruly converted.\n\nIn order, therefore, to deliver pious consciences from these\nlabyrinths of the sophists, we have ascribed to repentance [or\nconversion] these two parts, namely, contrition and faith.  If any\none desires to add a third namely, fruits worthy of repentance, i.e.,\na change of the entire life and character for the better [good works\nwhich shall and must follow conversion], we will not make any\nopposition.  From contrition we separate those idle and infinite\ndiscussions, as to when we grieve from love of God, and when from\nfear of punishment.  [For these are nothing but mere words and a\nuseless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of\nmind of a terrified conscience.] But we say that contrition is the\ntrue terror of conscience, which feels that God is angry with sin,\nand which grieves that it has sinned.  And this contrition takes\nplace in this manner when sins are censured by the Word of God,\nbecause the sum of the preaching of the Gospel is this, namely, to\nconvict of sin, and to offer for Christ's sake the remission of sins\nand righteousness, and the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, and that as\nregenerate men we should do good works.  Thus Christ comprises the\nsum of the Gospel when He says in the last chapter of Luke, v. 74:\nThat repentance and remission of sins should be preached in My name\namong all nations.  And of these terrors Scripture speaks, as Ps. 38,\n4. 8: For mine iniquities are gone over mine head, as a heavy burden\nthey are too heavy for me...I am feeble and sore broken; I have\nroared by reason of the disquietness of My heart.  And Ps. 6, 2. 3:\nHave mercy upon me, O Lord; for I am weak; O Lord, heal me; for my\nbones are vexed.  My soul is also sore vexed; but Thou, O Lord how\nlong!  And Is. 38, 10.13: I said in the cutting off of my days, I\nshall go to the gates of the grave: I am deprived of the residue of\nmy years....I reckoned till morning that, as a lion, so will He break\nall my bones.  [Again, v. 14: Mine eyes fail with looking upward; 0\nLord, I am oppressed.] In these terrors, conscience feels the wrath\nof God against sin, which is unknown to secure men walking according\nto the flesh [as the sophists and their like].  It sees the turpitude\nof sin, and seriously grieves that it has sinned; meanwhile it also\nflees from the dreadful wrath of God, because human nature, unless\nsustained by the Word of God, cannot endure it.  Thus Paul says, Gal.\n2, 19: I through the Law am dead to the Law, For the Law only accuses\nand terrifies consciences.  In these terrors our adversaries say\nnothing of faith, they present only the Word, which convicts of sin.\nWhen this is taught alone, it is the doctrine of the Law, not of the\nGospel.  By these griefs and terrors, they say, men merit grace,\nprovided they love God.  But how will men love God in true terrors\nwhen they feel the terrible and inexpressible wrath of God What else\nthan despair do those teach who in these terrors, display only the\nLaw?\n\nWe therefore add as the second part of repentance, Of Faith in Christ,\nthat in these terrors the Gospel concerning Christ ought to be set\nforth to consciences, in which Gospel the remission of sins is freely\npromised concerning Christ.  Therefore, they ought to believe that\nfor Christ's sake sins are freely remitted to them.  This faith\ncheers, sustains, and quickens the contrite, according to Rom. 5, 1:\nBeing justified by faith, we have peace with God.  This faith obtains\nthe remission of sins.  This faith justifies before God, as the same\npassage testifies: Being justified by faith.  This faith shows the\ndistinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of\nDavid.  The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the\nreason that to this there is not added this faith which apprehends\nthe remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake.\nAccordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails because to it\nthere is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted\nfor Christ's sake.  Neither is love present before reconciliation has\nbeen made by faith.  For without Christ the Law [God's Law or the\nFirst Commandment] is not performed, according to [Eph. 2, 18; 3,12]\nRom. 5, 2: By Christ we have access to God.  And this faith grows\ngradually and throughout the entire life, struggles with sin [is\ntested by various temptations] in order to overcome sin and death.\nBut love follows faith, as we have said above.  And thus filial fear\ncan be clearly defined as such anxiety as has been connected with\nfaith, i.e., where faith consoles and sustains the anxious heart.  It\nis servile fear when faith does not sustain the anxious heart [fear\nwithout faith, where there is nothing but wrath and doubt].\n\nMoreover, the power of the keys administers and presents the Gospel\nthrough absolution, which [proclaims peace to me and] is the true\nvoice of the Gospel.  Thus we also comprise absolution when we speak\nof faith, because faith cometh by hearing, as Paul says Rom. 10, 17.\nFor when the Gospel is heard and the absolution [i.e., the promise of\ndivine grace] is heard, the conscience is encouraged and receives\nconsolation.  And because God truly quickens through the Word, the\nkeys truly remit sins before God [here on earth sins are truly\ncanceled in such a manner that they are canceled also before God in\nheaven] according to Luke 10,10: He that heareth you heareth Me\nWherefore the voice of the one absolving must be believed not\notherwise than we would believe a voice from heaven.  And absolution\n[that blessed word of comfort] properly can be called a sacrament of\nrepentance, as also the more learned scholastic theologians speak.\nMeanwhile this faith is nourished in a manifold way in temptations,\nthrough the declarations of the Gospel [the hearing of sermons,\nreading] and the use of the Sacraments.  For these are [seals and]\nsigns of [the covenant and grace in] the New Testament, i.e., signs\nof [propitiation and] the remission of sins.  They offer, therefore,\nthe remission of sins, as the words of the Lord's Supper clearly\ntestify, Matt. 26, 26. 28: This is My body, which is given for you.\nThis is the cup of the New Testament, etc. Thus faith is conceived\nand strengthened through absolution, through the hearing of the\nGospel, through the use of the Sacraments, so that it may not succumb\nwhile it struggles with the terrors of sin and death.  This method of\nrepentance is plain and clear, and increases the worth of the power\nof the keys and of the Sacraments, and illumines the benefit of\nChrist, and teaches us to avail ourselves of Christ as Mediator and\nPropitiator.\n\nBut as the Confutation condemns us for having assigned these two\nparts to repentance, we must show that [not we, but] Scripture\nexpresses these as the chief parts in repentance or conversion.  For\nChrist says Matt. 11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are\nheavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Here there are two members.\nThe labor and the burden signify the contrition, anxiety, and terrors\nof sin and of death.  To come to Christ is to believe that sins are\nremitted for Christ's sake, when we believe, our hearts are quickened\nby the Holy Ghost through the Word of Christ.  Here, therefore, there\nare these two chief parts, contrition and faith.  And in Mark 1, 15\nChrist says: Repent ye and believe the Gospel, where in the first\nmember He convicts of sins, in the latter He consoles us, and shows\nthe remission of sins.  For to believe the Gospel is not that general\nfaith which devils also have [is not only to believe the history of\nthe Gospel], but in the proper sense it is to believe that the\nremission of sins has been granted for Christ's sake.  For this is\nrevealed in the Gospel.  You see also here that the two parts are\njoined, contrition when sins are reproved and faith, when it is said:\nBelieve the Gospel.  If any one should say here that Christ includes\nalso the fruits of repentance or the entire new life, we shall not\ndissent.  For this suffices us, that contrition and faith are named\nas the chief parts.\n\nPaul almost everywhere, when he describes conversion or renewal,\ndesignates these two parts, mortification and quickening, as in Col.\n2, 11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made\nwithout hands, namely, by putting off the body of the sins of the\nflesh.  And afterward, v. 12: Wherein also ye are risen with Him\nthrough the faith of the operation of God.  Here are two parts.  [Of\nthese two parts he speaks plainly Rom. 6, 2. 4. 11, that we are dead\nto sin, which takes place by contrition and its terrors, and that we\nshould rise again with Christ, which takes place when by faith we\nagain obtain consolation and life.  And since faith is to bring\nconsolation and peace into the conscience, according to Rom. 5, 1:\nBeing justified by faith, we have peace, it follows that there is\nfirst terror and anxiety in the conscience.  Thus contrition and\nfaith go side by side.] One is putting off the body of sins; the\nother is the rising again through faith.  Neither ought these words,\nmortification, quickening, putting off the body of sins, rising again,\nto be understood in a Platonic way, concerning a feigned change; but\nmortification signifies true terrors, such as those of the dying,\nwhich nature could not sustain unless it were supported by faith.  So\nhe names that as the putting off of the body of sins which we\nordinarily call contrition, because in these griefs the natural\nconcupiscence is purged away.  And quickening ought not to be\nunderstood as a Platonic fancy, but as consolation which truly\nsustains life that is escaping in contrition.  Here, therefore, are\ntwo parts: contrition and faith.  For as conscience cannot be\npacified except by faith, therefore faith alone quickens, according\nto the declaration, Hab. 2, 4; Rom. 1, 17: The just shall live by\nfaith.\n\nAnd then in Col. 2, 14 it is said that Christ blots out the\nhandwriting which through the Law is against us.  Here also there are\ntwo parts, the handwriting and the blotting out of the handwriting.\nThe handwriting, however, is conscience, convicting and condemning us.\nThe Law, moreover, is the word which reproves and condemns sins.\nTherefore, this voice which says, I have sinned against the Lord, as\nDavid says, 2 Sam. 12, 13, is the handwriting.  And wicked and secure\nmen do not seriously give forth this voice.  For they do not see,\nthey do not read the sentence of the Law written in the heart.  In\ntrue griefs and terrors this sentence is perceived.  Therefore the\nhandwriting which condemns us is contrition itself.  To blot out the\nhandwriting is to expunge this sentence by which we declare that we\nshall be condemned, and to engrave the sentence according to which we\nknow that we have been freed from this condemnation.  But faith is\nthe new sentence, which reverses the former sentence, and gives peace\nand life to the heart.\n\nHowever, what need is there to cite many testimonies since they are\neverywhere obvious in the Scriptures?  Ps. 118, 18: The Lord hath\nchastened me sore, but He hath not given me over unto death.  Ps. 119,\n28: My soul melteth for heaviness; strengthen Thou me according unto\nThy word.  Here, in the first member, contrition is contained, and in\nthe second the mode is clearly described how in contrition we are\nrevived, namely, by the Word of God which offers grace.  This\nsustains and quickens hearts.  And 1 Sam. 2, 6 The Lord killeth and\nmaketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up.  By one\nof these, contrition is signified, by the other, faith is signified.\nAnd Is. 28, 21: The Lord shall be wroth that He may do His work, His\nstrange work, and bring to pass His act, His strange act.  He calls\nit the strange work of the Lord when He terrifies because to quicken\nand console is God's own work.  [Other works, as, to terrify and to\nkill, are not God's own works, for God only quickens.] But He\nterrifies, he says, for this reason, namely, that there may be a\nplace for consolation and quickening, because hearts that are secure\nand do not feel the wrath of God loathe consolation.  In this manner\nScripture is accustomed to join these two the terrors and the\nconsolation, in order to teach that in repentance there are these\nchief members, contrition, and faith that consoles and justifies.\nNeither do we see how the nature of repentance can be presented more\nclearly and simply.  [We know with certainty that God thus works in\nHis Christians in the Church.]\n\nFor the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to\njustify and quicken those who have been terrified.  Into these two\nworks all Scripture has been distributed.  The one part is the Law,\nwhich shows, reproves, and condemns sins.  The other part is the\nGospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this\npromise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first\nhaving been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3, 15],\nafterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by\nthe prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ\nand disseminated over the entire world by the apostles.  For all the\nsaints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own\nattrition or contrition.\n\nAnd the examples [how the saints became godly] show likewise these\ntwo parts.  After his sin Adam is reproved and becomes terrified,\nthis was contrition.  Afterward God promises grace, and speaks of a\nfuture seed (the blessed seed, i.e., Christ), by which the kingdom of\nthe devil, death, and sin will be destroyed, there He offers the\nremission of sins.  These are the chief things.  For although the\npunishment is afterwards added, yet this punishment does not merit\nthe remission of sin.  And concerning this kind of punishment we\nshall speak after a while.\n\nSo David is reproved by Nathan, and, terrified, he says, 2 Sam. 12,\n13: I have sinned against the Lord.  This is contrition.  Afterward\nhe hears the absolution: The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou\nshalt not die.  This voice encourages David, and by faith sustains,\njustifies, and quickens him.  Here a punishment is also added, but\nthis punishment does not merit the remission of sins.  Nor are\nspecial punishments always added, but in repentance these two things\nought always to exist, namely, contrition and faith, as Luke 7, 37.\n38. The woman, who was a sinner, came to Christ weeping.  By these\ntears the contrition is recognized.  Afterward she hears the\nabsolution: Thy sins are forgiven; thy faith hath saved thee; go in\npeace.  This is the second part of repentance, namely, faith, which\nencourages and consoles her.  From all these it is apparent to godly\nreaders that we assign to repentance those parts which properly\nbelong to it in conversion, or regeneration, and the remission of sin.\nWorthy fruits and punishments [likewise, patience that we be\nwilling to bear the cross and punishments, which God lays upon the\nold Adam] follow regeneration and the remission of sin.  For this\nreason we have mentioned these two parts, in order that the faith\nwhich we require in repentance [of which the sophists and canonists\nhave all been silent] might be the better seen.  And what that faith\nis which the Gospel proclaims can be better understood when it is set\nover against contrition and mortification.\n\nBut as the adversaries expressly condemn our statement that men\nobtain the remission of sins by faith, we shall add a few proofs from\nwhich it will be understood that the remission of sins is obtained\nnot _ex opere operato_ because of contrition, but by that special\nfaith by which an individual believes that sins are remitted to him.\nFor this is the chief article concerning which we are contending with\nour adversaries, and the knowledge of which we regard especially\nnecessary to all Christians.  As, however, it appears that we have\nspoken sufficiently above concerning the same subject, we shall here\nbe briefer.  For very closely related are the topics of the doctrine\nof repentance and the doctrine of justification.\n\nWhen the adversaries speak of faith, and say that it precedes\nrepentance, they understand by faith, not that which justifies, but\nthat which, in a general way, believes that God exists, that\npunishments have been threatened to the wicked [that there is a hell],\netc. In addition to this faith we require that each one believe that\nhis sins are remitted to him.  Concerning this special faith we are\ndisputing, and we oppose it to the opinion which bids us trust not in\nthe promise of Christ, but in the _opus operatum_, of contrition,\nconfession, and satisfactions, etc. This faith follows terrors in\nsuch a manner as to overcome them, and render the conscience pacified.\nTo this faith we ascribe justification and regeneration, inasmuch\nas it frees from terrors, and brings forth in the heart not only\npeace and joy, but also a new life.  We maintain [with the help of\nGod we shall defend to eternity and against all the gates of hell]\nthat this faith is truly necessary for the remission of sins, and\naccordingly place it among the parts of repentance.  Nor does the\nChurch of Christ believe otherwise, although our adversaries [like\nmad dogs] contradict us.\n\nMoreover, to begin with, we ask the adversaries whether to receive\nabsolution is a part of repentance, or not.  But if they separate it\nfrom confession as they are subtile in making the distinction, we do\nnot see of what benefit confession is without absolution.  If,\nhowever, they do not separate the receiving of absolution from\nconfession, it is necessary for them to hold that faith is a part of\nrepentance, because absolution is not received except by faith.  That\nabsolution, however is not received except by faith can be proved\nfrom Paul, who teaches Rom. 4, 16, that the promise cannot be\nreceived except by faith.  But absolution is the promise of the\nremission of sins [nothing else than the Gospel, the divine promise\nof God's grace and favor].  Therefore, it necessarily requires faith.\nNeither do we see how he who does not assent to it may be said to\nreceive absolution.  And what else is the refusal to assent to\nabsolution but charging God with falsehood, If the heart doubts, it\nregards those things which God promises as uncertain and of no\naccount.  Accordingly, in 1 John 5, 10 it is written: He that\nbelieveth not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the\nrecord that God gave of His Son.\n\nSecondly, we think that the adversaries acknowledge that the\nremission of sins is either a part, or the end, or, to speak in their\nmanner, the _terminus ad quem_ of repentance.  [For what does\nrepentance help if the forgiveness of sins be not obtained?]\nTherefore that by which the remission of sins is received is\ncorrectly added to the parts [must certainly be the most prominent\npart] of repentance.  It is very certain, however, that even though\nall the gates of hell contradict us, yet the remission of sins cannot\nbe received except by faith alone, which believes that sins are\nremitted for Christ's sake, according to Rom. 3, 25: Whom God hath\nset forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood.  Likewise\nRom. 5, 2: By whom also we have access by faith unto grace, etc. For\na terrified conscience cannot set against God's wrath our works or\nour love, but it is at length pacified when it apprehends Christ as\nMediator, and believes the promises given for His sake.  For those\nwho dream that without faith in Christ hearts become pacified, do not\nunderstand what the remission of sins is, or how it came to us.\nPeter, 1 Ep. 2, 6, cites from Is. 49, 23, and 28, 16: He that\nbelieveth on Him shall not be confounded.  It is necessary, therefore,\nthat hypocrites be confounded, who are confident that they receive\nthe remission of sins because of their own works, and not because of\nChrist.  Peter also says in Acts 10, 43: To Him give all the prophets\nwitness that through His name whosoever believeth in Him, shall\nreceive remission of sins.  What he says, through His name, could not\nbe expressed more clearly and he adds: Whosoever believeth in Him.\nThus, therefore, we receive the remission of sins only through the\nname of Christ, i.e., for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of any\nmerits and works of our own.  And this occurs when we believe that\nsins are remitted to us for Christ's sake.\n\nOur adversaries cry out that they are the Church, that they are\nfollowing the consensus of the Church [what the Church catholic\nuniversal, holds].  But Peter also here cites in our issue the\nconsensus of the Church: To Him give all the prophets witness, that\nthrough His name, whosoever believeth in Him, shall receive remission\nof sins, etc. The consensus of the prophets is assuredly to be judged\nas the consensus of the Church universal.  [I verily think that if\nall the holy prophets are unanimously agreed in a declaration ( since\nGod regards even a single prophet as an inestimable treasure), it\nwould also be a decree, a declaration, and a unanimous strong\nconclusion of the universal, catholic, Christian, holy Church, and\nwould be justly regarded as such.] We concede neither to the Pope nor\nto the Church the power to make decrees against this consensus of the\nprophets.  But the bull of Leo openly condemns this article, Of the\nRemission of Sins and the adversaries condemn it in the Confutation.\nFrom which it is apparent what sort of a Church we must judge that of\nthese men to be, who not only by their decrees censure the doctrine\nthat we obtain the remission of sins by faith, not on account of our\nworks, but on account of Christ, but who also give the command by\nforce and the sword to abolish it, and by every kind of cruelty [like\nbloodhounds] to put to death good men who thus believe.\n\nBut they have authors of a great name Scotus, Gabriel, and the like,\nand passages of the Fathers which are cited in a mutilated form in\nthe decrees.  Certainly, if the testimonies are to be counted, they\nwin.  For there is a very great crowd of most trifling writers upon\nthe Sententiae, who, as though they had conspired, defend these\nfigments concerning the merit of attrition and of works, and other\nthings which we have above recounted.  [Aye, it is true, they are all\ncalled teachers and authors, but by their singing you can tell what\nsort of birds they are.  These authors have taught nothing but\nphilosophy, and have known nothing of Christ and the work of God,\ntheir books show this plainly.] But lest any one be moved by the\nmultitude of citations, there is no great weight in the testimonies\nof the later writers, who did not originate their own writings, but\nonly, by compiling from the writers before them, transferred these\nopinions from some books into others.  They have exercised no\njudgment, but just like petty judges silently have approved the\nerrors of their superiors, which they have not understood.  Let us\nnot, therefore, hesitate to oppose this utterance of Peter, which\ncites the consensus of the prophets, to ever so many legions of the\nSententiaries.  And to this utterance of Peter the testimony of the\nHoly Ghost is added.  For the text speaks thus, Acts 10, 44: While\nPeter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which\nheard the Word.  Therefore, let pious consciences know that the\ncommand of God is this that they believe that they are freely\nforgiven for Christ's sake, and not for the sake of our works.  And\nby this command of God let them sustain themselves against despair,\nand against the terrors of sin and of death.  And let them know that\nthis belief has existed among saints from the beginning of the world.\n[Of this the idle sophists know little; and the blessed proclamation,\nthe Gospel, which proclaims the forgiveness of sins through the\nblessed Seed, that is, Christ, has from the beginning of the world\nbeen the greatest consolation and treasure to all pious kings all\nprophets, all believers.  For they have believed in the same Christ\nin whom we believe; for from the beginning of the world no saint has\nbeen saved in any other way than through the faith of the same Gospel.\n] For Peter clearly cites the consensus of the prophets, and the\nwritings of the apostles testify that they believe the same thing.\nNor are testimonies of the Fathers wanting.  For Bernard says the\nsame thing in words that are in no way obscure: For it is necessary\nfirst of all to believe that you cannot have remission of sins except\nby the indulgence of God, but add yet that you believe also this,\nnamely, that through Him sins are forgiven thee.  This is the\ntestimony which the Holy Ghost asserts in your heart, saying: \"Thy\nsins are forgiven thee.\" For thus the apostle judges that man is\njustified freely through faith.  These words of Bernard shed a\nwonderful light upon our cause, because he not only requires that we\nin a general way believe that sins are remitted through mercy but he\nbids us add special faith, by which we believe that sins are remitted\neven to us; and he teaches how we may be rendered certain concerning\nthe remission of sins, namely when our hearts are encouraged by faith,\nand become tranquil through the Holy Ghost.  What more do the\nadversaries require?  [But how now, ye adversaries?  Is St. Bernard\nalso a heretic?] Do they still dare deny that by faith we obtain the\nremission of sins, or that faith is a part of repentance?\n\nThirdly, the adversaries say that sin is remitted; because an attrite\nor contrite person elicits an act of love to God [if we undertake\nfrom reason to love God], and by this act merits to receive the\nremission of sins.  This is nothing but to teach the Law, the Gospel\nbeing blotted out, and the promise concerning Christ being abolished.\nFor they require only the Law and our works, because the Law demands\nlove.  Besides they teach us to be confident that we obtain remission\nof sins because of contrition and love.  What else is this than to\nput confidence in our works, not in the Word and promise of God\nconcerning Christ?  But if the Law be sufficient for obtaining the\nremission of sins, what need is there of the Gospel?  What need is\nthere of Christ if we obtain remission of sins because of our own\nwork?  We, on the other hand call consciences away from the Law to\nthe Gospel, and from confidence in their own works to confidence in\nthe promise and Christ, because the Gospel presents to us Christ, and\npromises freely the remission of sins for Christ's sake.  In this\npromise it bids us trust, namely, that for Christ's sake we are\nreconciled to the Father, and not for the sake of our own contrition\nor love.  For there is no other Mediator or Propitiator than Christ.\nNeither can we do the works of the Law unless we have first been\nreconciled through Christ.  And if we would do anything, yet we must\nbelieve that not for the sake of these works, but for the sake of\nChrist, as Mediator and Propitiator, we obtain the remission of sins.\n\nYea, it is a reproach to Christ and a repeal of the Gospel to believe\nthat we obtain the remission of sins on account of the Law, or\notherwise than by faith in Christ.  This method also we have\ndiscussed above in the chapter Of Justification, where we declared\nwhy we confess that men are justified by faith, not by love.\nTherefore the doctrine of the adversaries, when they teach that by\ntheir own contrition and love men obtain the remission of sins, and\ntrust in this contrition and love, is merely the doctrine of the Law\nand of that, too, as not understood [which they do not understand\nwith respect to the kind of love towards God which it demands], just\nas the Jews looked upon the veiled face of Moses.  For let us imagine\nthat love is present, let us imagine that works are present, yet\nneither love nor works can a propitiation for sin [or be of as much\nvalue as Christ].  And they cannot even be opposed to the wrath and\njudgment of God, according to Ps. 143, 2: Enter not into judgment\nwith Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.\nNeither ought the honor of Christ to be transferred to our works.\n\nFor these reasons Paul contends that we are not justified by the Law,\nand he opposes to the Law the promise of the remission of sins which\nis granted for Christ's sake and teaches that we freely receive the\nremission of sins for Christ's sake.  Paul calls us away from the Law\nto this promise.  Upon this promise he bids us look [and regard the\nLord Christ our treasure], which certainly will be void if we are\njustified by the Law before we are justified through the promise, or\nif we obtain the remission of sins on account of our own\nrighteousness.  But it is evident that the promise was given us and\nChrist was tendered to us for the very reason that we cannot do the\nworks of the Law.  Therefore it is necessary that we are reconciled\nby the promise before we do the works of the Law.  The promise,\nhowever, is received only by faith.  Therefore it is necessary for\ncontrite persons to apprehend by faith the promise of the remission\nof sins granted for Christ's sake, and to be confident that freely\nfor Christ's sake they have a reconciled Father.  This is the meaning\nof Paul, Rom. 4, 13, where he says: Therefore it is of faith that it\nmight be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure.  And Gal. 3,\n22: The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by\nfaith of Jesus Christ might be given them that believe, i.e., all are\nunder sin, neither can they be freed otherwise than by apprehending\nby faith the promise of the remission of sins.  Therefore we must by\nfaith accept the remission of sins before we do the works of the Law,\nalthough, as has been said above, love follows faith, because the\nregenerate receive the Holy Ghost, and accordingly begin [to become\nfriendly to the Law and] to do the works of the Law.\n\nWe would cite more testimonies if they were not obvious to every\ngodly reader in the Scriptures.  And we do not wish to be too prolix,\nin order that this ease may be the more readily seen through.\nNeither, indeed, is there any doubt that the meaning of Paul is what\nwe are defending, namely, that by faith we receive the remission of\nsins for Christ's sake, that by faith we ought to oppose to God's\nwrath Christ as Mediator, and not our works.  Neither let godly minds\nbe disturbed, even though the adversaries find fault with the\njudgments of Paul.  Nothing is said so simply that it cannot be\ndistorted by caviling.  We know that what we have mentioned is the\ntrue and genuine meaning of Paul, we know that this our belief brings\nto godly consciences [in agony of death and temptation] sure comfort,\nwithout which no one can in God's judgment.\n\nTherefore let these pharisaic opinions of the adversaries be rejected,\nnamely, that we do not receive by faith the remission of sins, but\nthat it ought to be merited by our love and works; that we ought to\noppose our love and our works to the wrath of God.  Not of the Gospel,\nbut of the Law is this doctrine, which feigns that man is justified\nby the Law before he has been reconciled through Christ to God, since\nChrist says, John 15, 5: With out Me, ye can do nothing; likewise: I\nam the true Vine; ye are the branches.  But the adversaries feign\nthat we are branches, not of Christ, but of Moses.  For they wish to\nbe justified by the Law, and to offer their love and works to God\nbefore they are reconciled to God through Christ, before they are\nbranches of Christ.  Paul, on the other hand [who is certainly a much\ngreater teacher than the adversaries], contends that the Law cannot\nbe observed without Christ.  Accordingly, in order that we [those who\ntruly feel and have experienced sin and anguish of conscience must\ncling to the promise of grace, in order that they] may be reconciled\nto God for Christ's sake, the promise must be received before we do\nthe works of the Law.  We think that these things are sufficiently\nclear to godly consciences.  And hence they will understand why we\nhave declared above that men are justified by faith, not by love,\nbecause we must oppose to God's wrath not our love or works (or trust\nin our love and works), but Christ as Mediator [for all our ability,\nall our deeds and works, are far too weak to remove and appease God's\nwrath].  And we must apprehend the promise of the remission of sins\nbefore we do the works of the Law.\n\nLastly, when will conscience be pacified if we receive remission of\nsins on the ground that we love, or that we do the works of the Law?\nFor the Law will always accuse us, because we never satisfy God's Law.\nJust as Paul says, Rom. 4, 15: The Law worketh wrath.  Chrysostom\nasks concerning repentance, Whence are we made sure that our sins are\nremitted us?  The adversaries also, in their \"Sentences,\" ask\nconcerning the same subject.  [The question, verily, is worth asking\nblessed the man that returns the right answer.] This cannot be\nexplained, consciences cannot be made tranquil, unless they know that\nit is God's command and the very Gospel that they should be firmly\nconfident that for Christ's sake sins are remitted freely, and that\nthey should not doubt that these are remitted to them.  If any one\ndoubts, he charges, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10, the divine promise\nwith falsehood.  We teach that this certainty of faith is required in\nthe Gospel.  The adversaries leave consciences uncertain and wavering.\nConsciences, however do nothing from faith when they perpetually\ndoubt whether they have remission.  [For it is not possible that\nthere should be rest, or a quiet and peaceful conscience, if they\ndoubt whether God be gracious.  For if they doubt whether they have a\ngracious God, whether they are doing right, whether they have\nforgiveness of sins, how can, etc.] How can they in this doubt call\nupon God, how can they be confident that they are heard?  Thus the\nentire life is without God [faith] and without the true worship of\nGod.  This is what Paul says, Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith\nis sin.  And because they are constantly occupied with this doubt,\nthey never experience what faith [God or Christ] is.  Thus it comes\nto pass that they rush at last into despair [die in doubt, without\nGod, without all knowledge of God].  Such is the doctrine of the\nadversaries, the doctrine of the Law, the annulling of the Gospel,\nthe doctrine of despair.  [Whereby Christ is suppressed, men are led\ninto overwhelming sorrow and torture of conscience, and finally, when\ntemptation comes, into despair.  Let His Imperial Majesty graciously\nconsider and well examine this matter, it does not concern gold or\nsilver but souls and consciences.] Now we are glad to refer to all\ngood men the judgment concerning this topic of repentance (for it has\nno obscurity), in order that they may decide whether we or the\nadversaries have taught those things which are more godly and\nhealthful to consciences.  Indeed, these dissensions in the Church do\nnot delight us; wherefore, if we did not have great and necessary\nreasons for dissenting from the adversaries, we would with the\ngreatest pleasure be silent.  But now, since they condemn the\nmanifest truth, it is not right for us to desert a cause which is not\nour own, but is that of Christ and the Church.  [We cannot with\nfidelity to God and conscience deny this blessed doctrine and divine\ntruth, from which we expect at last, when this poor temporal life\nceases and all help of creatures fails, the only eternal, highest\nconsolation: nor will we in anything recede from this cause, which is\nnot only ours, but that of all Christendom, and concerns the highest\ntreasure, Jesus Christ.]\n\nWe have declared for what reasons we assigned to repentance these two\nparts, contrition and faith.  And we have done this the more readily\nbecause many expressions concerning repentance are published which\nare cited in a mutilated form from the Fathers [Augustine and the\nother ancient Fathers], and which the adversaries have distorted in\norder to put faith out of sight.  Such are: Repentance is to lament\npast evils, and not to commit again deeds that ought to be lamented.\nAgain: Repentance is a kind of vengeance of him who grieves, thus\npunishing in himself what he is sorry for having committed.  In these\npassages no mention is made of faith.  And not even in the schools,\nwhen they interpret, is anything added concerning faith.  Therefore,\nin order that the doctrine of faith might be the more conspicuous, we\nhave enumerated it among the parts of repentance.  For the actual\nfact shows that those passages which require contrition or good works,\nand make no mention of justifying faith, are dangerous [as\nexperience proves].  And prudence can justly be desired in those who\nhave collected these centos of the \"Sentences\" and decrees.  For\nsince the Fathers speak in some places concerning one part, and in\nother places concerning another part of repentance, it would have\nbeen well to select and combine their judgments not only concerning\none part, but concerning both, i.e., concerning contrition and faith.\n\nFor Tertullian speaks excellently concerning faith, dwelling upon the\noath in the prophet, Ezek. 33, 11: As I live, saith the Lord God, I\nhave no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn\nfrom his way and live.  For as God swears that He does not wish the\ndeath of a sinner, He shows that faith is required, in order that we\nmay believe the one swearing, and be firmly confident that He\nforgives us.  The authority of the divine promises ought by itself to\nbe great in our estimation.  But this promise has also been confirmed\nby an oath.  Therefore, if any one be not confident that he is\nforgiven, he denies that God has sworn what is true, than which a\nmore horrible blasphemy cannot be imagined.  For Tertullian speaks\nthus: He invites by reward to salvation, even swearing.  Saying, \"I\nlive,\" He desires that He be believed.  Oh, blessed we, for whose\nsake God swears!  Oh, most miserable if we believe not the Lord even\nwhen He swears!  But here we must know that this faith ought to be\nconfident that God freely forgives us for the sake of Christ, for the\nsake of His own promise, not for the sake of our works, contrition,\nconfession, or satisfactions.  For if faith relies upon these works,\nit immediately becomes uncertain, because the terrified conscience\nsees that these works are unworthy.  Accordingly, Ambrose speaks\nadmirably concerning repentance: Therefore it is proper for us to\nbelieve both that we are to repent, and that we are to be pardoned,\nbut so as to expect pardon as from faith, which obtains it as from a\nhandwriting.  Again: It is faith which covers our sins.  Therefore\nthere are sentences extant in the Fathers, not only concerning\ncontrition and works, but also concerning faith.  But the adversaries,\nsince they understand neither the nature of repentance nor the\nlanguage of the Fathers, select passages concerning a part of\nrepentance, namely, concerning works; they pass over the declarations\nmade elsewhere concerning faith, since they do not understand them.\n\n\n\n\nPart 16\n\n\nArticle VI: _Of Confession and Satisfaction._\n\nGood men can easily judge that it is of the greatest importance that\nthe true doctrine concerning the abovementioned parts, namely,\ncontrition and faith, be preserved.  [For the great fraud of\nindulgences, etc., and the preposterous doctrines of the sophists\nhave sufficiently taught us what great vexation and danger arise\ntherefrom if a foul stroke is here made.  How many a godly conscience\nunder the Papacy sought with great labor the true way, and in the\nmidst of such darkness did not find it!] Therefore, we have always\nbeen occupied more with the elucidation of these topics, and have\ndisputed nothing as yet concerning confession and satisfaction.  For\nwe also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution,\nas being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the\nkeys pronounces upon individuals.  Therefore it would be wicked to\nremove private absolution from the Church.  Neither do they\nunderstand what the remission of sins or the power of the keys is, if\nthere are any who despise private absolution.  But in reference to\nthe enumeration of offenses in confession, we have said above that we\nhold that it is not necessary by divine right.  For the objection,\nmade by some, that a judge ought to investigate a ease before he\npronounces upon it, pertains in no way to this subject; because the\nministry of absolution is favor or grace, it is not a legal process,\nor law.  [For God is the Judge, who has committed to the apostles,\nnot the office of judges, but the administration of grace namely, to\nacquit those who desire, etc.] Therefore ministers in the Church have\nthe command to remit sin, they have not the command to investigate\nsecret sins.  And indeed, they absolve from those that we do not\nremember; for which reason absolution, which is the voice of the\nGospel remitting sins and consoling consciences, does not require\njudicial examination.\n\nAnd it is ridiculous to transfer hither the saying of Solomon, Prov.\n27, 23: Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks.  For\nSolomon says nothing of confession, but gives to the father of a\nfamily a domestic precept, that he should use what is his own, and\nabstain from what is another's, and he commands him to take care of\nhis own property diligently, yet in such a way that, with his mind\noccupied with the increase of his resources, he should not cast away\nthe fear of God, or faith or care in God's Word.  But our adversaries,\nby a wonderful metamorphosis, transform passages of Scripture to\nwhatever meaning they please.  [They produce from the Scriptures\nblack and white, as they please, contrary to the natural meaning of\nthe clear words.] Here to know signifies with them to hear\nconfessions, the state, not the outward life, but the secrets of\nconscience; and the flocks signify men.  [Sable, we think means a\nschool within which there are such doctors and orators.  But it has\nhappened aright to those who thus despise the Holy Scriptures and all\nfine arts that they make gross mistakes in grammar.] The\ninterpretation is assuredly neat, and is worthy of these despisers of\nthe pursuits of eloquence.  But if any one desires by a similitude to\ntransfer a precept from a father of a family to a pastor of a Church,\nhe ought certainly to interpret \"state\" [V. _vultus_, countenance] as\napplying to the outward life.  This similitude will be more\nconsistent.\n\nBut let us omit such matters as these.  At different times in the\nPsalms mention is made of confession, as, Ps. 32, 5: I said, I will\nconfess my transgressions unto the Lord; and Thou forgavest the\niniquity of my sin.  Such confession of sin which is made to God is\ncontrition itself.  For when confession is made to God, it must be\nmade with the heart not alone with the voice, as is made on the stage\nby actors.  Therefore, such confession is contrition, in which,\nfeeling God's wrath, we confess that God is justly angry, and that He\ncannot be appeased by our works, and nevertheless we seek for mercy\nbecause of God's promise.  Such is the following confession, Ps. 51,\n4: Against Thee only have I sinned, that Thou mightest be justified\nand be clear when Thou judgest, i.e., \"I confess that I am a sinner,\nand have merited eternal wrath, nor can I set my righteousnesses, my\nmerits, against Thy wrath; accordingly, I declare that Thou art just\nwhen Thou condemnest and punishest us, I declare that Thou art clear\nwhen hypocrites judge Thee to be unjust in punishing them or in\ncondemning the well-deserving.  Yea, our merits cannot be opposed to\nThy judgment but we shall thus be justified, namely, if Thou\njustifiest us, if through Thy mercy Thou accountest us righteous.\"\nPerhaps some one may also cite Jas. 5, 16: Confess your faults one to\nanother.  But here the reference is not to confession that is to be\nmade to the priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliation\nof brethren to each other.  For it commands that the confession be\nmutual.\n\nAgain, our adversaries will condemn many most generally received\nteachers if they will contend that in confession an enumeration of\noffenses is necessary according to divine Law.  For although we\napprove of confession, and judge that some examination is of\nadvantage in order that men may be the better instructed [young and\ninexperienced persons be questioned], yet the matter must be so\ncontrolled that snares are not cast upon consciences, which never\nwill be tranquil if they think that they cannot obtain the remission\nof sins unless this precise enumeration be made.  That which the\nadversaries have expressed in the _Confutation_ is certainly most\nfalse, namely, that a full confession is necessary for salvation.\nFor this is impossible.  And what snares they here cast upon the\nconscience when they require a full confession!  For when will\nconscience be sure that the confession is complete?  In the\nChurch-writers mention is made of confession, but they do not speak\nof this enumeration of secret offenses, but of the rite of public\nrepentance.  For as the fallen or notorious [those guilty of public\ncrimes] were not received without fixed satisfactions [without a\npublic ceremony or reproof], they made confession on this account to\nthe presbyters, in order that satisfactions might be prescribed to\nthem according to the measure of their offenses.  This entire matter\ncontained nothing similar to the enumeration concerning which we are\ndisputing.  This confession was made, not because the remission of\nsins before God could not occur without it, but because satisfactions\ncould not be prescribed unless the kind of offense were first known.\nFor different offenses had different canons.\n\nAnd from this rite of public repentance there has been left the word\n\"satisfaction.\" For the holy Fathers were unwilling to receive the\nfallen or the notorious, unless as far as it was possible, their\nrepentance had been first examined into and exhibited publicly.  And\nthere seem to have been many causes for this.  For to chastise those\nwho had fallen served as an example, just as also the gloss upon the\ndegrees admonishes, and it was improper immediately to admit\nnotorious men to the communion [without their being tested].  These\ncustoms have long since grown obsolete.  Neither is it necessary to\nrestore them, because they are not necessary for the remission of\nsins before God.  Neither did the Fathers hold this, namely, that men\nmerit the remission of sins through such customs or such works,\nalthough these spectacles [such outward ceremonies] usually lead\nastray the ignorant to think that by these works they merit the\nremission of sins before God.  But if any one thus holds, he holds to\nthe faith of a Jew and heathen.  For also the heathen had certain\nexpiations for offenses through which they imagined to be reconciled\nto God.  Now, however, although the custom has become obsolete, the\nname satisfaction still remains, and a trace of the custom also\nremains of prescribing in confession certain satisfactions, which\nthey define as works that are not due.  We call them canonical\nsatisfactions.  Of these we hold, just as of the enumeration, that\ncanonical satisfactions [these public ceremonies] are not necessary\nby divine Law for the remission of sins, just as those ancient\nexhibitions of satisfactions in public repentance were not necessary\nby divine Law for the remission of sins.  For the belief concerning\nfaith must be retained, that by faith we obtain remission of sins for\nChrist's sake, and not for the sake of our works that precede or\nfollow [when we are converted or born anew in Christ].  And for this\nreason we have discussed especially the question of satisfactions,\nthat by submitting to them the righteousness of faith be not obscured,\nor men think that for the sake of these works they obtain remission\nof sins.  And many sayings that are current in the schools aid the\nerror, such as that which they give in the definition of satisfaction,\nnamely, that it is wrought for the purpose of appeasing the divine\ndispleasure.\n\nBut, nevertheless, the adversaries acknowledge that satisfactions are\nof no profit for the remission of guilt.  Yet they imagine that\nsatisfactions are of profit in redeeming from the punishments,\nwhether of purgatory or other punishments.  For thus they teach that\nin the remission of sins, God [without means, alone] remits the guilt,\nand yet, because it belongs to divine justice to punish sin, that He\ncommutes eternal into temporal punishment.  They add further that a\npart of this temporal punishment is remitted by the power of the keys,\nbut that the rest is redeemed by means of satisfactions.  Neither\ncan it be understood of what punishments a part is remitted by the\npower of the keys, unless they say that a part of the punishments of\npurgatory is remitted, from which it would follow that satisfactions\nare only punishments redeeming from purgatory.  And these\nsatisfactions, they say, avail even though they are rendered by those\nwho have relapsed into mortal sin, as though indeed the divine\ndispleasure could be appeased by those who are in mortal sin.  This\nentire matter is fictitious, and recently fabricated without the\nauthority of Scripture and the old writers of the Church.  And not\neven Longobardus speaks in this way of satisfactions.  The\nscholastics saw that there were satisfactions in the Church; and they\ndid not notice that these exhibitions had been instituted both for\nthe purpose of example, and for testing those who desired to be\nreceived by the Church.  In a word, they did not see that it was a\ndiscipline, and entirely a secular matter.  Accordingly, they\nsuperstitiously imagined that these avail not for discipline before\nthe Church, but for appeasing God.  And just as in other places they\nfrequently, with great inaptness, have confounded spiritual and civil\nmatters [the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual, and the kingdom\nof the world, and external discipline], the same happens also with\nregard to satisfactions.  But the gloss on the canons at various\nplaces testifies that these observances were instituted for the sake\nof church discipline [should serve alone for an example before the\nChurch].\n\nLet us see, moreover, how in the Confutation which they had the\npresumption to obtrude upon His Imperial Majesty, they prove these\nfigments of theirs.  They cite many passages from the Scriptures, in\norder to impose upon the inexperienced, as though this subject which\nwas unknown even in the time of Longobard, had authority from the\nScriptures.  They bring forward such passages as these: Bring forth,\ntherefore, fruits meet for repentance, Matt. 3, 8, Mark 1, 15. Again:\nYield your members servants to righteousness Rom. 6, 19. Again,\nChrist preaches repentance, Matt. 4, 17: Repent.  Again, Christ Luke\n24, 47, commands the apostles to preach repentance, and Peter\npreaches repentance Acts 2, 38. Afterward they cite certain passages\nof the Fathers and the canons, and conclude that satisfactions in the\nChurch are not to be abolished contrary to the plain Gospel and the\ndecrees of the Councils and Fathers [against the decision of the Holy\nChurch]; nay, even that those who have been absolved by the priest\nought to bring to perfection the repentance that has been enjoined,\nfollowing the declaration of Paul, Titus 2, 14: Who gave Himself for\nus that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself\na peculiar people, zealous of good works.\n\nMay God put to confusion these godless sophists who so wickedly\ndistort God's Word to their own most vain dreams!  What good man is\nthere who is not moved by such indignity?\" Christ says, Repent, the\napostles preach repentance; therefore eternal punishments are\ncompensated by the punishments of purgatory; therefore the keys have\nthe power to remit part of the punishments of purgatory; therefore\nsatisfactions redeem the punishments of purgatory\"!  Who has taught\nthese asses such logic?  Yet this is neither logic nor sophistry, but\ncunning trickery.  Accordingly, they appeal to the expression repent\nin such a way that, when the inexperienced hear such a passage cited\nagainst us they may derive the opinion that we deny the entire\nrepentance.  By these arts they endeavor to alienate minds and to\nenkindle hatred, so that the inexperienced may cry out against us\n[Crucify! crucify!], that such pestilent heretics as disapprove of\nrepentance should be removed from their midst.  [Thus they are\npublicly convicted of being liars in this matter.]\n\nBut we hope that among good men these calumnies [and\nmisrepresentations of Holy Scripture] may make little headway.  And\nGod will not long endure such impudence and wickedness.  [They will\ncertainly be consumed by the First and Second Commandments.] Neither\nhas the Pope of Rome consulted well for his own dignity in employing\nsuch patrons, because he has entrusted a matter of the greatest\nimportance to the judgment of these sophists.  For since we include\nin the Confession almost the sum of the entire Christian doctrine,\njudges should have been appointed to make a declaration concerning\nmatters so important and so many and various, whose learning and\nfaith would have been more approved than that of these sophists who\nhave written this Confutation.  It was particularly becoming for you,\nO Campegius, in accordance with your wisdom, to have taken care that\nin regard to matters of such importance they should write nothing\nwhich either at this time or with posterity might seem to be able to\ndiminish regard for the Roman See.  If the Roman See judges it right\nthat all nations should acknowledge her as mistress of the faith, she\nought to take pains that learned and uncorrupt men make investigation\nconcerning matters of religion.  For what will the world judge if at\nany time the writing of the adversaries be brought to light?  What\nwill posterity judge concerning these reproachful judicial\ninvestigations?  You see, O Campegius, that these are the last times,\nin which Christ predicted that there would be the greatest danger to\nreligion.  You, therefore, who ought, as it were, to sit on the\nwatch-tower and control religious matters, should in these times\nemploy unusual wisdom and diligence.  There are many signs which,\nunless you heed them, threaten a change to the Roman state.  And you\nmake a mistake if you think that Churches should be retained only by\nforce and arms.  Men ask to be taught concerning religion.  How many\ndo you suppose there are, not only in Germany, but also in England,\nin Spain, in France, in Italy, and finally even in the city of Rome,\nwho, since they see that controversies have arisen concerning of the\ngreatest importance, are beginning here and there to doubt, and to be\nsilently indignant that you refuse to investigate and judge aright\nsubjects of such weight as these; that you do not deliver wavering\nconsciences; that you only bid us be overthrown and annihilated by\narms?  There are many good men to whom this doubt is more bitter than\ndeath.  You do not consider sufficiently how great a subject religion\nis, if you think that good men are in anguish for a slight cause\nwhenever they begin to doubt concerning any dogma.  And this doubt\ncan have no other effect than to produce the greatest bitterness of\nhatred against those who, when they ought to heal consciences, plant\nthemselves in the way of the explanation of the subject.  We do not\nhere say that you ought to fear God's judgment.  For the hierarchs\nthink that they can easily provide against this, for since they hold\nthe keys, of course they can open heaven for themselves whenever they\nwish.  We are speaking of the judgments of men and the silent desires\nof all nations, which, indeed, at this time require that these\nmatters be investigated and decided in such a manner that good minds\nmay be healed and freed from doubt.  For, in accordance with your\nwisdom, you can easily decide what will take place if at any time\nthis hatred against you should break forth.  But by this favor you\nwill be able to bind to yourself all nations, as all sane men regard\nit as the highest and most important matter, if you heal doubting\nconsciences.  We have said these things not because we doubt\nconcerning our Confession.  For we know that it is true, godly, and\nuseful to godly consciences.  But it is likely that there are many in\nmany places who waver concerning matters of no light importance, and\nyet do not hear such teachers as are able to heal their consciences.\n\nBut let us return to the main point.  The Scriptures cited by the\nadversaries speak in no way of canonical satisfactions, and of the\nopinions of the scholastics, since it is evident that the latter were\nonly recently born.  Therefore it is pure slander when they distort\nScripture to their own opinions.  We say that good fruits, good works\nin every kind of life, ought to follow repentance, i.e., conversion\nor regeneration [the renewal of the Holy Ghost in the heart].\nNeither can there be true conversion or true contrition where\nmortifications of the flesh and good fruits do not follow [if we do\nnot externally render good works and Christian patience].  True\nterrors, true griefs of mind, do not allow the body to indulge in\nsensual pleasures, and true faith is not ungrateful to God, neither\ndoes it despise God's commandments.  In a word, there is no inner\nrepentance unless it also produces outwardly mortifications of the\nflesh.  We say also that this is the meaning of John when he says,\nMatt. 3, 8: Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance.\nLikewise of Paul when he says Rom. 6, 19: Yield your members servants\nto righteousness; just as he likewise says elsewhere, Rom. 12, 1:\nPresent your bodies a living sacrifice, etc. And when Christ says\nMatt. 4, 17: Repent, He certainly speaks of the entire repentance, of\nthe entire newness of life and its fruits, He does not speak of those\nhypocritical satisfactions which, the scholastics avail for\ncompensating the punishment of purgatory or other punishments when\nthey are made by those who are in mortal sin.\n\nMany arguments, likewise, can be collected to show that these\npassages of Scripture pertain in no way to scholastic satisfactions.\nThese men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due\n[which we are not obliged to do]; but Scripture, in these passages,\nrequires works that are due [which we are obliged to do].  For this\nword of Christ, Repent, is the word of a commandment.  Likewise the\nadversaries write that if any one who goes to confession should\nrefuse to undertake satisfactions, he does not sin, but will pay\nthese penalties in purgatory.  Now the following passages are,\nwithout controversy, precepts pertaining to this life: Repent; Bring\nforth fruits meet for repentance; Yield your members servants to\nrighteousness.  Therefore they cannot be distorted to the\nsatisfactions which it is permitted to refuse.  For to refuse God's\ncommandments is not permitted.  [For God's commands are not thus left\nto our discretion.] Thirdly, indulgences remit these satisfactions,\nas is taught by the Chapter, _De Poenitentiis et Remissione_,\nbeginning _Quum ex eo_, etc. But indulgences do not free us from the\ncommandments: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.\nTherefore it is manifest that these passages of Scripture have been\nwickedly distorted to apply to canonical satisfactions.  See further\nwhat follows.  If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, or\nsatispassions [sufferings sufficient], or if satisfactions are a\nredemption of the punishments of purgatory, do these passages also\ngive commandment that souls be punished in purgatory?  [The\nabove-cited passages of Christ and Paul must also show and prove that\nsouls enter purgatory and there suffer pain.] Since this must follow\nfrom the opinions of the adversaries, these passages should be\ninterpreted in a new way [these passages should put on new coats]:\nBring forth fruits meet for repentance; Repent, i.e., suffer the\npunishments of purgatory after this life.  But we do not care about\nrefuting in more words these absurdities of the adversaries.  For it\nis evident that Scripture speaks of works that are due, of the entire\nnewness of life, and not of these observances of works that are not\ndue, of which the adversaries speak.  And yet, by these figments they\ndefend orders [of monks], the sale of Masses and infinite observances,\nnamely, as works which, if they do not make satisfaction for guilt,\nyet make satisfaction for punishment.\n\nSince, therefore, the passages of Scripture cited do not say that\neternal punishments are to be compensated by works that are not due,\nthe adversaries are rash in affirming that these satisfactions are\ncompensated by canonical satisfactions.  Nor do the keys have the\ncommand to commute some punishments, and likewise to remit a part of\nthe punishments.  For where are such things [dreams and lies] read in\nthe Scriptures?  Christ speaks of the remission of sins when He says\nMatt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall loose, etc. [i.e.], sin being\nforgiven, death eternal is taken away, and life eternal bestowed.\nNor does Whatsoever ye shall bind speak of the imposing of\npunishments, but of retaining the sins of those who are not converted.\nMoreover, the declaration of Longobard concerning remitting a part\nof the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; a\npart of these the pastors remitted.  Although, we hold that\nrepentance ought to bring forth good fruits for the sake of God's\nglory and command, and good fruits, true fastings, true prayers, true\nalms, etc., have the commands of God, yet in the Holy Scriptures we\nnowhere find this, namely, that eternal punishments are not remitted\nexcept on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonical\nsatisfactions, i.e., on account of certain works not due, or that the\npower of the keys has the command to commute their punishments or to\nremit a portion.  These things the adversaries were to prove.  [This\nthey will not attempt.]\n\nBesides, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt,\nbut also for eternal death, according to Hos. 13, 14: 0 death, I will\nbe thy death.  How monstrous, therefore, it is to say that the\nsatisfaction of Christ redeemed from the guilt, and our punishments\nredeem from eternal death, as the expression, I will be thy death,\nought then to be understood, not concerning Christ, but concerning\nour works, and, indeed, not concerning the works commanded by God,\nbut concerning some frigid observances devised by men!  And these are\nsaid to abolish death, even when they are wrought in mortal sin.  It\nis incredible with what grief we recite these absurdities of the\nadversaries, which cannot but cause one who considers them to be\nenraged against such doctrines of demons, which the devil has spread\nin the Church in order to suppress the knowledge of the Law and\nGospel, of repentance and quickening, and the benefits of Christ.\nFor of the Law they speak thus: \"God, condescending to our weakness,\nhas given to man a measure of those things to which of necessity he\nis bound and this is the observance of precepts, so that from what is\nleft, i.e., from works of supererogation, he can render satisfaction\nwith reference to offenses that have been committed.\" Here men\nimagine that they can observe the Law of God in such a manner as to\nbe able to do even more than the Law exacts.  But Scripture\neverywhere exclaims that we are far distant from the perfection which\nthe Law requires.  Yet these men imagine that the Law of God has been\ncomprised in outward and civil righteousness; they do not see that it\nrequires true love to God \"with the whole heart,\" etc., and condemns\nthe entire concupiscence in the nature.  Therefore no one does as\nmuch as the Law requires.  Hence their imagination that we can do\nmore is ridiculous.  For although we can perform outward works not\ncommanded by God's Law [which Paul calls beggarly ordinances], yet\nthe confidence that satisfaction is rendered God's Law [yea, that\nmore is done than God demands] is vain and wicked.  And true prayers,\ntrue alms, true fastings, have God's command; and where they have\nGod's command, they cannot without sin be omitted.  But these works,\nin so far as they have not been commanded by God's Law, but have a\nfixed form derived from human rule are works of human traditions of\nwhich Christ says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me with the\ncommandments of men, such as certain fasts appointed not for\nrestraining the flesh, but that, by this work, honor may be given to\nGod, as Scotus says, and eternal death be made up for; likewise, a\nfixed number of prayers, a fixed measure of alms when they are\nrendered in such a way that this measure is a worship _ex opere\noperato_ giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death.  For\nthey ascribe satisfaction to these _ex opere operato_, because they\nteach that they avail even in those who are in mortal sin.  There are\nworks which depart still farther from God's commands, as [rosaries\nand] pilgrimages; and of these there is a great variety: one makes a\njourney [to St. Jacob] clad in mail, and another with bare feet.\nChrist calls these \"vain acts of worship,\" and hence they do not\nserve to appease God's displeasure, as the adversaries say.  And yet\nthey adorn these works with magnificent titles; they call them works\nof supererogation, to them the honor is ascribed of being a price\npaid instead of eternal death.  Thus they are preferred to the works\nof God's commandments [the true works expressly mentioned in the Ten\nCommandments].  In this way the Law of God is obscured in two ways,\none, because satisfaction is thought to be rendered God's Law by\nmeans of outward and civil works, the other, because human traditions\nare added whose works are preferred to the works of the divine Law.\n\n\n\n\nPart 17\n\n\nIn the second place, repentance and grace are obscured.  For eternal\ndeath is not atoned for by this compensation of works because it is\nidle, and does not in the present life taste of death.  Something\nelse must be opposed to death when it tries us.  For just as the\nwrath of God is overcome by faith in Christ, so death is overcome by\nfaith in Christ.  Just as Paul says, 1 Cor. 16, 67: But thanks be to\nGod which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  He\ndoes not say: \"Who giveth us the victory if we oppose our\nsatisfactions against death.\" The adversaries treat of idle\nspeculations concerning the remission of guilt, and do not see how in\nthe remission of guilt, the heart is freed by faith in Christ from\nGod's anger and eternal death.  Since, therefore, the death of Christ\nis a satisfaction for eternal death, and since the adversaries\nthemselves confess that these works of satisfactions are works that\nare not due, but are works of human traditions, of which Christ says,\nMatt. 16, 9, that they are vain acts of worship, we can safely affirm\nthat canonical satisfactions are not necessary by divine Law for the\nremission of guilt, or eternal punishment, or the punishment of\npurgatory.\n\nBut the adversaries object that vengeance or punishment is necessary\nfor repentance, because Augustine says that repentance is vengeance\npunishing, etc..  We grant that vengeance or punishment is necessary\nin repentance, yet not as merit or price, as the adversaries imagine\nthat satisfactions are.  But vengeance is in repentance formally, i.e.,\nbecause regeneration itself occurs by a perpetual mortification of\nthe oldness of life.  The saying of Scotus may indeed be very\nbeautiful, that _poenitentia_ is so called because it is, as it were,\n_poenae tenentia_, holding to punishment.  But of what punishment, of\nwhat vengeance, does Augustine speak?  Certainly of true punishment,\nof true vengeance, namely, of contrition, of true terrors.  Nor do we\nhere exclude the outward mortifications of the body, which follow\ntrue grief of mind.  The adversaries make a great mistake if they\nimagine that canonical satisfactions [their juggler's tricks,\nrosaries, pilgrimages, and such like] are more truly punishments than\nare true terrors in the heart.  It is most foolish to distort the\nname of punishment to these frigid satisfactions, and not to refer\nthem to those horrible terrors of conscience of which David says, Ps.\n18, 4; 2 Sam. 22, 5: The sorrows of death compassed me.  Who would\nnot rather, clad in mail and equipped, seek the church of James, the\nbasilica of Peter, etc., than bear that ineffable violence of grief\nwhich exists even in persons of ordinary lives, if there be true\nrepentance?\n\nBut they say that it belongs to God's justice to punish sin.  He\ncertainly punishes it in contrition, when in these terrors He shows\nHis wrath.  Just as David indicates when he prays, Ps. 6, 1: 0 Lord,\nrebuke me not in Thine anger.  And Jeremiah, 10, 24: 0 Lord, correct\nme, but with judgment; not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me to\nnothing.  Here indeed the most bitter punishments are spoken of.  And\nthe adversaries acknowledge that contrition can be so great that\nsatisfaction is not required.  Contrition is therefore more truly a\npunishment than is satisfaction.  Besides, saints are subject to\ndeath, and all general afflictions, as Peter says, 1 Ep. 4, 17: For\nthe time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if\nit first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the\nGospel of God?  And although these afflictions are for the most part\nthe punishments of sin, yet in the godly they have a better end,\nnamely, to exercise them, that they may learn amidst trials to seek\nGod's aid, to acknowledge the distrust of their own hearts, etc., as\nPaul says of himself, 2 Cor. 1, 9: But we had the sentence of death\nin ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which\nraiseth the dead.  And Isaiah says, 26, 16: They poured out prayer\nwhen Thy chastening was upon them i.e., afflictions are a discipline\nby which God exercises the saints.  Likewise afflictions are\ninflicted because of present sin, since in the saints they mortify\nand extinguish concupiscence, so that they may be renewed by the\nSpirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 10: The body is dead because of sin, i.\ne., it is mortified [more and more every day] because of present sin\nwhich is still left in the flesh.  And death itself serves this\npurpose, namely, to abolish this flesh of sin, that we may rise\nabsolutely new.  Neither is there now in the death of the believer,\nsince by faith he has overcome the terrors of death, that sting and\nsense of wrath of which Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15, 56: The sting of death\nis sin; and the strength of sin is the Law.  This strength of sin,\nthis sense of wrath, is truly a punishment as long as it is present;\nwithout this sense of wrath, death is not properly a punishment.\nMoreover, canonical satisfactions do not belong to these punishments;\nas the adversaries say that by the power of the keys a part of the\npunishments is remitted.  Likewise, according to these very men, the\nkeys remit the satisfactions, and the punishments on account of which\nthe satisfactions are made.  But it is evident that the common\nafflictions are not removed by the power of the keys.  And if they\nwish to be understood concerning punishments, why do they add that\nsatisfaction is to be rendered in purgatory?\n\nThey oppose the example of Adam, and also of David, who was punished\nfor his adultery.  From these examples they derive the universal rule\nthat peculiar temporal punishments in the remission of sins\ncorrespond to individual sins.  It has been said before that saints\nsuffer punishments, which are works of God; they suffer contrition or\nterrors, they also suffer other common afflictions.  Thus, for\nexample, some suffer punishments of their own that have been imposed\nby God.  And these punishments pertain in no way to the keys because\nthe keys neither can impose nor remit them, but God, without the\nministry of the keys, imposes and remits them [as He will].\n\nNeither does the universal rule follow: Upon David a peculiar\npunishment was imposed, therefore, in addition to common afflictions,\nthere is another punishment of purgatory, in which each degree\ncorresponds to each sin.  Where does Scripture teach that we cannot\nbe freed from eternal death except by the compensation of certain\npunishments in addition to common afflictions?  But, on the other\nhand, it most frequently teaches that the remission of sins occurs\nfreely for Christ's sake, that Christ is the Victor of sin and death.\nTherefore the merit of satisfaction is not to be patched upon this.\nAnd although afflictions still remain, yet Scripture interprets these\nas the mortifications of present sin [to kill and humble the old\nAdam], and not as the compensations of eternal death or as prices for\neternal death.\n\nJob is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil\ndeeds, therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of\nwrath.  Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends\nof afflictions are more important [that they should learn to regard\ntroubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace], lest they think\nthat they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing\nbut God's punishment and anger.  The other more important ends are to\nbe considered namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He\nmay he able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah teaches in a long\ndiscourse, chap. 28. And when the disciples asked concerning the\nblind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of\nhis blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made\nmanifest in him.  And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose\njudgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken.  Thus\nthe prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.\nTherefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past\ndeeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and\nthat the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness\n[how He can help in the midst of death].\n\nThus Paul says, 2 Cor. 12, 5. 9: The strength of God is made perfect\nin my weakness.  Therefore, because of God's will, our bodies ought\nto be sacrifices, declare our obedience [and patience], and not to\ncompensate for eternal death, for which God has another price namely,\nthe death of His own Son.  And in this sense Gregory interprets even\nthe punishment of David when he says: If God on account of that sin\nhad threatened that he would thus be humbled by his son, why, when\nthe sin was forgiven, did He fulfil that which He had threatened\nagainst him?  The reply is that this remission was made that man\nmight not be hindered from receiving eternal life, but that the\nexample of the threatening followed, in order that the piety of the\nman might be exercised and tested even in this humility.  Thus also\nGod inflicted upon man death of body on account of sin, and after the\nremission of sins He did not remove it, for the sake of exercising\njustice namely, in order that the righteousness of those who are\nsanctified might be exercised and tested.\n\nNor, indeed, are common calamities [as war, famine, and similar\ncalamities], properly speaking, removed by these works of canonical\nsatisfactions, i.e., by these works of human traditions, which, they\nsay, _avail ex opere operato_, in such a way that, even though they\nare wrought in mortal sin, yet they redeem from the punishments.\n[And the adversaries themselves confess that they impose\nsatisfactions, not on account of such common calamities but on\naccount of purgatory; hence, their satisfactions are pure\nimaginations and dreams.] And when the passage of Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 31,\nis cited against us: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be\njudged by the Lord [they conclude therefrom that, if we impose\npunishment upon ourselves, God will judge us the more graciously],\nthe word to judge ought to be understood of the entire repentance and\ndue fruits, not of works which are not due.  Our adversaries pay the\npenalty for despising grammar when they understand to judge to be the\nsame as to make a pilgrimage clad in mail to the church of St. James,\nor similar works.  To judge signifies the entire repentance, it\nsignifies to condemn sins.  This condemnation truly occurs in\ncontrition and the change of life.  The entire repentance, contrition,\nfaith, the good fruits, obtain the mitigation of public and private\npunishments and calamities, as Isaiah teaches chap. 1, 17, 19: Cease\nto do evil; learn to do well, etc. Though your sins be as scarlet,\nthey shall be white as snow.  If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall\neat the good of the land.  Neither should a most important and\nsalutary meaning be transferred from the entire repentance, and from\nworks due or commanded by God, to the satisfactions and works of\nhuman traditions.  And this it is profitable to teach that common\nevils are mitigated by our repentance and by the true fruits of\nrepentance, by good works wrought from faith, not, as these men\nimagine, wrought in mortal sin.  And here belongs the example of the\nNinevites, Jonah 3, 10, who by their repentance (we speak of the\nentire repentance) were reconciled to God, and obtained the favor\nthat their city was not destroyed.\n\nMoreover, the making mention, by the Fathers, of satisfaction, and\nthe framing of canons by the councils, we have said above was a\nmatter of church-discipline instituted on account of the example.\nNor did they hold that this discipline is necessary for the remission\neither of the guilt or of the punishment.  For if some of them made\nmention of purgatory, they interpret it not as compensation for\neternal punishment [which only Christ makes], not as satisfaction,\nbut as purification of imperfect souls.  Just as Augustine says that\nvenial [daily] offenses are consumed i.e., distrust towards God and\nother similar dispositions are mortified.  Now and then the writers\ntransfer the term satisfaction from the rite itself or spectacle, to\nsignify true mortification.  Thus Augustine says: True satisfaction\nis to cut off the causes of sin, i.e., to mortify the flesh, likewise\nto restrain the flesh, not in order that eternal punishments may be\ncompensated for but so that the flesh may not allure to sin.\n\nThus concerning restitution, Gregory says that repentance is false if\nit does not satisfy those whose property we have taken.  For he who\nstill steals does not truly grieve that he has stolen or robbed.  For\nhe is a thief or robber, so long as he is the unjust possessor of the\nproperty of another.  This civil satisfaction is necessary, because\nit is written Eph. 4, 28: Let him that stole, steal no more.\nLikewise Chrysostom says: In the heart, contrition; in the mouth,\nconfession; in the work, entire humility.  This amounts to nothing\nagainst us.  Good works ought to follow repentance, it ought to be\nrepentance, not simulation, but a change of the entire life for the\nbetter.\n\nLikewise, the Fathers wrote that it is sufficient if once in life\nthis public or ceremonial penitence occur, about which the canons\nconcerning satisfactions have been made.  Therefore it can be\nunderstood that they held that these canons are not necessary for the\nremission of sins.  For in addition to this ceremonial penitence,\nthey frequently wish that penitence be rendered otherwise, where\ncanons of satisfactions were not required.\n\nThe composers of the Confutation write that the abolition of\nsatisfactions contrary to the plain Gospel is not to be endured.  We,\ntherefore, have thus far shown that these canonical satisfactions, i.\ne., works not due and that are to be performed in order to compensate\nfor punishment, have not the command of the Gospel.  The subject\nitself shows this.  If works of satisfaction are works which are not\ndue, why do they cite the plain Gospel?  For if the Gospel would\ncommand that punishments be compensated for by such works, the works\nwould already be due.  But thus they speak in order to impose upon\nthe inexperienced, and they cite testimonies which speak of works\nthat are due, although they themselves in their own satisfactions\nprescribe works that are not due.  Yea, in their schools they\nthemselves concede that satisfactions can be refused without [mortal]\nsin.  Therefore they here write falsely that we are compelled by the\nplain Gospel to undertake these canonical satisfactions.\n\nBut we have already frequently testified that repentance ought to\nproduce good fruits: and what the good fruits are the [Ten]\nCommandments teach, namely, [truly and from the heart most highly to\nesteem, fear, and love God, joyfully to call upon Him in need],\nprayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the Gospel [hearing this\nWord], to teach the Gospel, to obey parents and magistrates, to be\nfaithful to one's calling, not to kill, not to retain hatred, but to\nbe forgiving [to be agreeable and kind to one's neighbor], to give to\nthe needy, so far as we can according to our means, not to commit\nfornication or adultery, but to restrain and bridle and chastise the\nflesh, not for a compensation of eternal punishment, but so as not to\nobey the devil, or offend the Holy Ghost, likewise, to speak the\ntruth.  These fruits have God's injunction, and ought to be brought\nforth for the sake of God's glory and command; and they have their\nrewards also.  But that eternal punishments are not remitted except\non account of the compensation rendered by certain traditions or by\npurgatory, Scripture does not teach.  Indulgences were formerly\nremission of these public observances, so that men should not be\nexcessively burdened.  But if, by human authority, satisfactions and\npunishments can be remitted, this compensation, therefore, is not\nnecessary by divine Law, for a divine Law is not annulled by human\nauthority.  Furthermore, since the custom has now of itself become\nobsolete and the bishops have passed it by in silence, there is no\nnecessity for these remissions.  And yet the name indulgences\nremained.  And just as satisfactions were understood not with\nreference to external discipline, but with reference to the\ncompensation of punishment, so indulgences were incorrectly\nunderstood to free souls from purgatory.  But the keys have not the\npower of binding and loosing except upon earth, according to Matt. 16,\n19 : Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,\nand whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\nAlthough as we have said above, the keys have not the power to impose\npenalties, or to institute rites of worship, but only the command to\nremit sins to those who are converted, and to convict and\nexcommunicate those who are unwilling to be converted.  For just as\nto loose signifies to remit sins, so to bind signifies not to remit\nsins.  For Christ speaks of a spiritual kingdom.  And the command of\nGod is that the ministers of the Gospel should absolve those who are\nconverted, according to 2 Cor. 10, 8: The authority which the Lord\nhath given us for edification.  Therefore the reservation of eases is\na secular affair.  For it is a reservation of canonical punishment;\nit is not a reservation of guilt before God in those who are truly\nconverted.  Therefore the adversaries judge aright when they confess\nthat in the article of death the reservation of eases ought not to\nhinder absolution.\n\nWe have set forth the sum of our doctrine concerning repentance,\nwhich we certainly know is godly and salutary to good minds [and\nhighly necessary].  And if good men will compare our [yea, Christ's\nand His apostles'] doctrine with the very confused discussions of our\nadversaries, they will perceive that the adversaries have omitted the\ndoctrine [without which no one can teach or learn anything that is\nsubstantial and Christian] concerning faith justifying and consoling\ngodly hearts.  They will also see that the adversaries invent many\nthings concerning the merits of attrition, concerning the endless\nenumeration of offenses, concerning satisfactions, they say things\n[that touch neither earth nor heaven] agreeing neither with human nor\ndivine law, and which not even the adversaries themselves can\nsatisfactorily explain.\n\n\n\n\nPart 18\n\n\nArticle XIII (VII): _Of the Number and Use of the Sacraments._\n\nIn the Thirteenth Article the adversaries approve our statement that\nthe Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some\nimagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God's will\ntoward us, through which God moves hearts to believe [are not mere\nsigns whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war,\nlivery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.].\nBut here they bid us also count seven sacraments.  We hold that it\nshould be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in\nthe Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected.  Neither do we\nbelieve it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of\nteaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still\npreserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture.  Neither have\nthe ancients reckoned in the same manner.  [But concerning this\nnumber of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not\nbeen uniform in their enumeration, thus also these seven ceremonies\nare not equally necessary.]\n\nIf we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God and to\nwhich the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what\nare properly Sacraments.  For rites instituted by men will not in\nthis way be Sacraments properly so called.  For it does not belong to\nhuman authority to promise grace.  Therefore signs instituted without\nGod's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps\ninstruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to\nsomething [as a painted cross].  Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper,\nand Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly\nSacraments.  For these rites have God's command and the promise of\ngrace, which is peculiar to the New Testament.  For when we are\nbaptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our\nhearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ's\nsake.  And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves\nhearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17:\nFaith cometh by hearing.  But just as the Word enters the ear in\norder to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in\norder to move the heart.  The effect of the Word and of the rite is\nthe same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a\nvisible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it\nwere, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word.\nTherefore the effect of both is the same.\n\nConfirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers\nwhich not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, they do\nnot have God's command.  Therefore it is not useless to distinguish\nthese rites from the former, which have God's express command and a\nclear promise of grace.\n\nThe adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word,\nand administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it\nas referring to sacrifice, as though in the New Testament there ought\nto be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people,\nand merit the remission of sins for others.  We teach that the\nsacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for the\nsins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of other\nsacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins.  Men,\naccordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, but\nbecause of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that they\nhave been redeemed by this sacrifice.  They are accordingly called\npriests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in the\nLaw so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people;\nbut they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments\nto the people.  Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical,\nas the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches.  But if\nordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we\nare not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament.  For the ministry\nof the Word has God's command and glorious promises, Rom. 1, 16: The\nGospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.\nLikewise, Is. 55, 11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of\nMy mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish\nthat which I please.  If ordination be understood in this way,\nneither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament.\nFor the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be\nmost pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry\nand is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through\nmen and those who have been chosen by men].  And it is of advantage,\nso far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every\nkind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost\nis given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of\ntheir own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places,\nwaiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the\nAnabaptists now teach.\n\nMatrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the\nbeginning, immediately on the creation of the human race.  It has,\nmoreover, God's command; it has also promises, not indeed properly\npertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily\nlife.  Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he\nought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the two\nformer ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and\ntestimonies of grace and the remission of sins.  But if marriage will\nhave the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God's command\nother states or offices also, which have God's command, may be called\nsacraments, as, for example, the magistracy.\n\nLastly, if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered which\nhave God's command, and to which promises have been added, why do we\nnot add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament?  For it\nhas both God's command and very many promises and if placed among the\nSacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men to\npray.  Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions,\nwhich are even themselves signs, to which God has added promises.\nBut let us omit these things.  For no prudent man will strive greatly\nconcerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be\nretained which have God's command and promises.\n\nIt is still more needful to understand how the Sacraments are to be\nused.  Here we condemn the whole crowd of scholastic doctors, who\nteach that the Sacraments confer grace _ex opere operato_, without a\ngood disposition on the part of the one using them, provided he do\nnot place a hindrance in the way.  This is absolutely a Jewish\nopinion, to hold that we are justified by a ceremony, without a good\ndisposition of the heart, i.e., without faith.  And yet this impious\nand pernicious opinion is taught with great authority throughout the\nentire realm of the Pope.  Paul contradicts this and denies, Rom. 4,\n9, that Abraham was justified by circumcision, but asserts that\ncircumcision was a sign presented for exercising faith.  Thus we\nteach that in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added,\nwhich should believe these promises, and receive the promised things,\nthere offered in the Sacrament.  And the reason is plain and\nthoroughly grounded.  [This is a certain and true use of the holy\nSacrament, on which Christian hearts and consciences may risk to rely.\n] The promise is useless unless it is received by faith.  But the\nSacraments are the signs [and seals] of the promises.  Therefore, in\nthe use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added so that, if any one\nuse the Lord's Supper, he use it thus.  Because this is a Sacrament\nof the New Testament, as Christ clearly says, he ought for this very\nreason to be confident that what is promised in the New Testament\nnamely, the free remission of sins, is offered him.  And let him\nreceive this by faith, let him comfort his alarmed conscience, and\nknow that these testimonies are not fallacious, but as sure as though\n[and still surer than if] God by a new miracle would declare from\nheaven that it was His will to grant forgiveness.  But of what\nadvantage would these miracles and promises be to an unbeliever?  And\nhere we speak of special faith which believes the present promise,\nnot only that which in general believes that God exists, but which\nbelieves that the remission of sins is offered.  This use of the\nSacrament consoles godly and alarmed minds.\n\nMoreover, no one can express in words what abuses in the Church this\nfanatical opinion concerning the opus operate, without a good\ndisposition on the part of the one using the Sacraments, has produced.\nHence the infinite profanation of the Masses, but of this we shall\nspeak below.  Neither can a single letter be produced from the old\nwriters which in this matter favors the scholastics.  Yea Augustine\nsays the contrary, that the faith of the Sacrament, and not the\nSacrament justifies.  And the declaration of Paul is well known, Rom.\n10, 10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.\n\n\n\n\nPart 19\n\n\nArticle XIV: _Of Ecclesiastical Order._\n\nThe Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the\nadministration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one\nunless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that\nwe employ canonical ordination.  Concerning this subject we have\nfrequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to\nmaintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old\nchurch-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they\nhave been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our\ndoctrine and receive our priests].  For we know that\nchurch-discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid\ndown in the ancient canons with a good and useful intention.  But the\nbishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of\ndoctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty,\nthey put to death the poor innocent men.  These causes hinder our\npriests from acknowledging such bishops.  Thus the cruelty of the\nbishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly\ndesired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.  Let them see to it\nhow they will give an account to God for dispersing the Church.  In\nthis matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know\nthat our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to\napprove the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine.  And we\nknow that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright,\nand administer the Sacraments aright and not with those who not only\nby their edicts endeavor to efface God's Word, but also put to death\nthose who teach what is right and true towards whom, even though they\ndo something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder.\nFurthermore we wish here again to testify that we will gladly\nmaintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the\nbishops only cease to rage against our Churches.  This our desire\nwill clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity\nfrom the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is\nbeing undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting\nagainst the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain\njustice.\n\n\n\n\nPart 20\n\n\nArticle XV (VIII): _Of Human Traditions in the Church._\n\nIn the Fifteenth Article they receive the first part, in which we say\nthat such ecclesiastical rites are to be observed as can be observed\nwithout sin, and are of profit in the Church for tranquility and good\norder.  They altogether condemn the second part, in which we say that\nhuman traditions instituted to appease God, to merit grace, and make\nsatisfactions for sins are contrary to the Gospel.  Although in the\nConfession itself, when treating of the distinction of meats, we have\nspoken at sufficient length concerning traditions, yet certain things\nshould be briefly recounted here.\n\nAlthough we supposed that the adversaries would defend human\ntraditions on other grounds, yet we did not think that this would\ncome to pass, namely, that they would condemn this article: that we\ndo not merit the remission of sins or grace by the observance of\nhuman traditions.  Since, therefore, this article has been condemned,\nwe have an easy and plain case.  The adversaries are now openly\nJudaizing, are openly suppressing the Gospel by the doctrines of\ndemons.  For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons when it\nis taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remission\nof sins and grace.  For they are then obscuring the Gospel, the\nbenefit of Christ, and the righteousness of faith.  [For they are\njust as directly contrary to Christ and to the Gospel as are fire and\nwater to one another.] The Gospel teaches that by faith we receive\nfreely, for Christ's sake, the remission of sins and are reconciled.\nThe adversaries, on the other hand, appoint another mediator, namely\nthese traditions.  On account of these they wish to acquire remission\nof sins; on account of these they wish to appease God's wrath.  But\nChrist clearly says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me,\nteaching for doctrines the commandments of men.\n\nWe have above discussed at length that men are justified by faith\nwhen they believe that they have a reconciled God, not because of our\nworks, but gratuitously, for Christ's sake.  It is certain that this\nis the doctrine of the Gospel, because Paul clearly teaches Eph. 2, 8.\n9: By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves:\nit is the gift of God; not of works.  Now these men say that men\nmerit the remission of sins by these human observances.  What else is\nthis than to appoint another justifier, a mediator other than Christ?\nPaul says to the Galatians, 5, 4: Christ has become of no effect\nunto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, i.e., if you\nhold that by the observance of the Law you merit to be accounted\nrighteous before God, Christ will profit you nothing; for what need\nof Christ have those who hold that they are righteous by their own\nobservance of the Law?  God has set forth Christ with the promise\nthat on account of this Mediator, and not on account of our\nrighteousness, He wishes to be propitious to us.  But these men hold\nthat God is reconciled and propitious because of the traditions, and\nnot because of Christ.  Therefore they take away from Christ the\nhonor of Mediator.  Neither, so far as this matter is concerned is\nthere any difference between our traditions and the ceremonies of\nMoses.  Paul condemns the ceremonies of Moses, just as he condemns\ntraditions, for the reason that they were regarded as works which\nmerit righteousness before God.  Thus the office of Christ and the\nrighteousness of faith were obscured.  Therefore, the Law being\nremoved, and traditions being removed, he contends that the remission\nof sins has been promised not because of our works, but freely,\nbecause of Christ, if only by faith we receive it.  For the promise\nis not received except by faith.  Since, therefore, by faith we\nreceive the remission of sins since by faith we have a propitious God\nfor Christ's sake, it is an error and impiety to declare that because\nof these observances we merit the remission of sins.  If any one\nshould say here that we do not merit the remission of sins, but that\nthose who have already been justified by these traditions merit grace,\nPaul again replies, Gal. 2, 17, that Christ would be the minister of\nsin if after justification we must hold that henceforth we are not\naccounted righteous for Christ's sake, but we ought first, by other\nobservances, to merit that we be accounted righteous.  Likewise Gal.\n3, 15: Though it be but a man's covenant, no man addeth thereto.\nTherefore, neither to God's covenant, who promises that for Christ's\nsake He will be propitious to us ought we to add that we must first\nthrough these observances attain such merit as to be regarded as\naccepted and righteous.\n\nHowever, what need is there of a long discussion?  No tradition was\ninstituted by the holy Fathers with the design that it should merit\nthe remission of sins, or righteousness, but they have been\ninstituted for the sake of good order in the Church and for the sake\nof tranquillity.  And when any one wishes to institute certain works\nto merit the remission of sins, or righteousness, how will he know\nthat these works please God since he has not the testimony of God's\nWord?  How, without God's command and Word, will he render men\ncertain of God's will?  Does He not everywhere in the prophets\nprohibit men from instituting, without His commandment, peculiar\nrites of worship?  In Ezek. 20, 18. 19 it is written: Walk ye not in\nthe statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor\ndefile yourselves with their idols: I Am the Lord, your God.  Walk in\nMy statutes, and keep My judgements, and do them.  If men are allowed\nto institute religious rites and through these rites merit grace, the\nreligious rites of all the heathen will have to be approved, and the\nrites instituted by Jeroboam, 1 Kings 12, 26 f., and by others,\noutside of the Law, will have to be approved.  For what difference\ndoes it make?  If we have been allowed to institute religious rites\nthat are profitable for meriting grace, or righteousness, why was the\nsame not allowed the heathen and the Israelites?  But the religious\nrites of the heathen and the Israelites were rejected for the very\nreason that they held that by these they merited remission of sins\nand righteousness, and yet did not know [the highest service of God]\nthe righteousness of faith.  Lastly, whence are we rendered certain\nthat rites instituted by men without God's command justify, inasmuch\nas nothing can be affirmed of God's will without God's Word?  What if\nGod does not approve these services?  How, therefore, do the\nadversaries affirm that they justify?  Without God's Word and\ntestimony this cannot be affirmed.  And Paul says, Rom. 14, 23\nWhatsoever is not of faith is sin.  But as these services have no\ntestimony of God's Word, conscience must doubt as to whether they\nplease God.\n\nAnd what need is there of words on a subject so manifest?  If the\nadversaries defend these human services as meriting justification,\ngrace, and the remission of sins, they simply establish the kingdom\nof Antichrist.  For the kingdom of Antichrist is a new service of God,\ndevised by human authority rejecting Christ, just as the kingdom of\nMahomet has services and works through which it wishes to be\njustified before God; nor does it hold that men are gratuitously\njustified before God by faith for Christ's sake.  Thus the Papacy\nalso will be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it thus defends\nhuman services as justifying.  For the honor is taken away from\nChrist when they teach that we are not justified gratuitously by\nfaith, for Christ's sake, but by such services, especially when they\nteach that such services are not only useful for justification, but\nare also necessary, as they hold above in Art.  VII, where they\ncondemn us for saying that unto true unity of the Church it is not\nnecessary that rites instituted by men should everywhere be alike.\nDaniel, 11, 38, indicates that new human services will be the very\nform and constitution of the kingdom of Antichrist.  For he says thus:\nBut in his estate shall he honor the god of forges; and a god whom\nhis fathers knew not shall he honor with gold and silver and precious\nstones.  Here he describes new services, because he says that such a\ngod shall be worshiped as the fathers were ignorant of.  For although\nthe holy Fathers themselves had both rites and traditions, yet they\ndid not hold that these matters are useful or necessary for\njustification they did not obscure the glory and office Christ, but\ntaught that we are justified by faith for Christ's sake, and not for\nthe sake of these human services.  But they observed human rites for\nthe sake of bodily advantage, that the people might know at what time\nthey should assemble; that, for the sake of example, all things in\nthe churches might be done in order and becomingly; lastly, that the\ncommon people might receive a sort of training.  For the distinctions\nof times and the variety of rites are of service in admonishing the\ncommon people.  The Fathers had these reasons for maintaining the\nrites, and for these reasons we also judge it to be right that\ntraditions [good customs] be maintained.  And we are greatly\nsurprised that the adversaries [contrary to the entire Scriptures of\nthe Apostles, contrary to the Old and New Testaments] contend for\nanother design of traditions, namely, that they may merit the\nremission of sins, grace, or justification.  What else is this than\nto honor God with gold and silver and precious stones [as Daniel\nsays], i.e., to hold that God becomes reconciled by a variety in\nclothing, ornaments, and by similar rites [many kinds of church\ndecorations, banners, tapers], as are infinite in human traditions?\n\nPaul writes to the Colossians, 2, 23, that traditions have a show of\nwisdom.  And they indeed have.  For this good order is very becoming\nin the Church, and for this reason is necessary.  But human reason,\nbecause it does not understand the righteousness of faith, naturally\nimagines that such works justify men because they reconcile God, etc.\nThus the common people among the Israelites thought, and by this\nopinion increased such ceremonies, just as among us they have grown\nin the monasteries [as in our time one altar after another and one\nchurch after another is founded].  Thus human reason judges also of\nbodily exercises, of fasts, although the end of these is to restrain\nthe flesh, reason falsely adds that they are services which justify.\nAs Thomas writes: Fasting avails for the extinguishing and the\nprevention of guilt.  These are the words of Thomas.  Thus the\nsemblance of wisdom and righteousness in such works deceives men.\nAnd the examples of the saints are added [when they say: St. Francis\nwore a cap, etc.]; and when men desire to imitate these, they imitate,\nfor the most part, the outward exercises; their faith they do not\nimitate.\n\nAfter this semblance of wisdom and righteousness has deceived men,\nthen infinite evils follow; the Gospel concerning the righteousness\nof faith in Christ is obscured, and vain confidence in such works\nsucceeds.  Then the commandments of God are obscured; these works\narrogate to themselves the title of a perfect and spiritual life, and\nare far preferred to the works of God's commandments [the true, holy,\ngood works], as, the works of one's own calling, the administration\nof the state, the management of a family, married life, the bringing\nup of children.  Compared with those ceremonies, the latter are\njudged to be profane, so that they are exercised by many with some\ndoubt of conscience.  For it is known that many have abandoned the\nadministration of the state and married life, in order to embrace\nthese observances as better and holier [have gone into cloisters in\norder to become holy and spiritual].\n\nNor is this enough.  When the persuasion has taken possession of\nminds that such observances are necessary to justification,\nconsciences are in miserable anxiety because they cannot exactly\nfulfil all observances.  For how many are there who could enumerate\nall these observances?  There are immense books, yea whole libraries,\ncontaining not a syllable concerning Christ, concerning faith in\nChrist, concerning the good works of one's own calling, but which\nonly collect the traditions and interpretations by which they are\nsometimes rendered quite rigorous and sometimes relaxed.  [They write\nof such precepts as of fasting for forty days, the four canonical\nhours for prayer, etc.] How that most excellent man, Gerson, is\ntortured while he searches for the grades and extent of the precepts!\nNevertheless, he is not able to fix _epieicheian_ [mitigation] in a\ndefinite grade [and yet cannot find any sure grade where he could\nconfidently promise the heart assurance and peace].  Meanwhile, he\ndeeply deplores the dangers to godly consciences which this rigid\ninterpretation of the traditions produces.\n\nAgainst this semblance of wisdom and righteousness in human rites,\nwhich deceives men, let us therefore fortify ourselves by the Word of\nGod, and let us know, first of all that these neither merit before\nGod the remission of sins or justification, nor are necessary for\njustification.  We have above cited some testimonies.  And Paul is\nfull of them.  To the Colossians, 2, 16. 17, he clearly says: Let no\nman, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an\nholy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a\nshadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.  Here now he\nembraces at the same time both the Law of Moses and human traditions\nin order that the adversaries may not elude these testimonies,\naccording to their custom, upon the ground that Paul is speaking only\nof the Law of Moses.  But he clearly testifies here that he is\nspeaking of human traditions.  However, the adversaries do not see\nwhat they are saying; if the Gospel says that the ceremonies of Moses,\nwhich were divinely instituted, do not justify, how much less do\nhuman traditions justify!\n\nNeither have the bishops the power to institute services, as though\nthey justified, or were necessary for justification.  Yea, the\napostles, Acts 15, 10, say: Why tempt ye God to put a yoke, etc.,\nwhere Peter declares this purpose to burden the Church a great sin.\nAnd Paul forbids the Galatians, 5, 1, to be entangled again with the\nyoke of bondage.  Therefore, it is the will of the apostles that this\nliberty remain in the Church, that no services of the Law or of\ntraditions be judged as necessary (just as in the Law ceremonies were\nfor a time necessary), lest the righteousness of faith be obscured,\nif men judge that these services merit justification, or are\nnecessary for justification.  Many seek in traditions various\n_epieicheian_ [mitigations] in order to heal consciences, and yet\nthey do not find any sure grades by which to free consciences from\nthese chains.  But just as Alexander once for all solved the Gordian\nknot by cutting it with his sword when he could not disentangle it,\nso the apostles once for all free consciences from traditions,\nespecially if they are taught to merit justification.  The apostles\ncompel us to oppose this doctrine by teaching and examples.  They\ncompel us to teach that traditions do not justify; that they are not\nnecessary for justification; that no one ought to frame or receive\ntraditions with the opinion that they merit justification.  Then,\neven though any one should observe them, let him observe them without\nsuperstition as civil customs, just as without superstition soldiers\nare clothed in one way and scholars in another [as I regard my\nwearing of a German costume among the Germans and a French costume\namong the French as an observance of the usage of the land, and not\nfor the purpose of being saved thereby].  The apostles violate\ntraditions and are excused by Christ for the example was to be shown\nthe Pharisees that these services are unprofitable.  And if our\npeople neglect some traditions that are of little advantage, they are\nnow sufficiently excused, when these are required as though they\nmerit justification.  For such an opinion with regard to traditions\nis impious [an error not to be endured].\n\nBut we cheerfully maintain the old traditions [as, the three high\nfestivals, the observance of Sunday, and the like] made in the Church\nfor the sake of usefulness and tranquillity, and we interpret them in\na more moderate way, to the exclusion of the opinion which holds that\nthey justify.  And our enemies falsely accuse us of abolishing good\nordinances and churchdiscipline.  For we can truly declare that the\npublic form of the churches is more becoming with us than with the\nadversaries [that the true worship of God is observed in our churches\nin a more Christian, honorable way].  And if any one will consider it\naright, we conform to the canons more truly than do the adversaries.\n[For the adversaries, without shame, tread under foot the most\nhonorable canons, just as they do Christ and the Gospel.] With the\nadversaries, unwilling celebrants, and those hired for pay, and very\nfrequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses.  They sing psalms, not\nthat they may learn or pray [for the greater part do not understand a\nverse in the psalms], but for the sake of the service as though this\nwork were a service, or at feast, for the sake of reward.  [All this\nthey cannot deny.  Some who are upright among them are even ashamed\nof this baffle, and declare that the clergy is in need of reformation.\n] With us many use the Lord's Supper [willingly and without\nconstraint] every Lord's Day, but after having been first instructed,\nexamined [whether they know and understand anything of the Lord's\nPrayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments], and absolved.  The\nchildren sing psalms in order that they may learn [become familiar\nwith passages of Scripture], the people also sing [Latin and German\npsalms], in order that they may either learn or pray.  With the\nadversaries there is no catechization of the children whatever,\nconcerning which even the canons give commands.  With us the pastors\nand ministers of the churches are compelled publicly [and privately]\nto instruct and hear the youth; and this ceremony produces the best\nfruits.  [And the Catechism is not a mere childish thing, as is the\nbearing of banners and tapers, but a very profitable instruction.]\nAmong the adversaries, in many regions [as in Italy and Spain],\nduring the entire year no sermons are delivered, except in Lent [Here\nthey ought to cry out and justly make grievous complaint, for this\nmeans at one blow to overthrow completely all worship.  For of all\nacts that is the greatest most holy, most necessary, and highest,\nwhich God has required as the highest in the First and the Second\nCommandment, namely, to preach the Word of God.  For the ministry is\nthe highest office in the Church.  Now, if this worship is omitted,\nhow can there be knowledge of God, the doctrine of Christ, or the\nGospel,] But the chief service of God is to teach the Gospel.  And\nwhen the adversaries do preach, they speak of human traditions, of\nthe worship of saints [of consecrated water], and similar tripes,\nwhich the people justly loathe, therefore they are deserted\nimmediately in the beginning, after the text of the Gospel has been\nrecited.  [This practise may have started because the people did not\nwish to hear the other lies.] A few better ones begin now to speak of\ngood works, but of the righteousness of faith, of faith in Christ, of\nthe consolation of consciences, they say nothing; yea, this most\nwholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches.\n[This blessed doctrine, the precious holy Gospel, they call Lutheran.\n] On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are occupied with\nsuch topics as these: of repentance, of the fear of God, of faith in\nChrist, of the righteousness of faith, of the consolation of\nconsciences by faith, of the exercises of faith; of prayer, what its\nnature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is\nefficacious, that it is heard of the cross; of the authority of\nmagistrates and all civil ordinances [likewise, how each one in his\nstation should live in a Christian manner, and, out of obedience to\nthe command of the Lord God, should conduct himself in reference to\nevery worldly ordinance and law]; of the distinction between the\nkingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom and political affairs, of\nmarriage; of the education and instruction of children, of chastity;\nof all the offices of love.  From this condition of the churches it\nmay be judged that we diligently maintain church-discipline and godly\nceremonies and good churchcustoms.\n\nAnd of the mortification of the flesh and discipline of the body we\nthus teach, just as the Confession states, that a true and not a\nfeigned mortification occurs through the cross and afflictions by\nwhich God exercises us [when God breaks our will, inflicts the cross\nand trouble].  In these we must obey God's will, as Paul says, Rom.\n12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice.  And these are the\nspiritual exercises of fear and faith.  But in addition to this\nmortification which occurs through the cross [which does not depend\nupon our will] there is also a voluntary kind of exercise necessary,\nof which Christ says Luke 21, 34: Take heed to yourselves lest at any\ntime your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting.  And Paul, 1 Cor. 9,\n27: I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, etc. And\nthese exercises are to be undertaken not because they are services\nthat justify, but in order to curb the flesh, lest satiety may\noverpower us, and render us secure and indifferent, the result of\nwhich is that men indulge and obey the dispositions of the flesh.\nThis diligence ought to be perpetual, because it has the perpetual\ncommand of God.  And this prescribed form of certain meats and times\ndoes nothing [as experience shows] towards curbing the flesh.  For it\nis more luxurious and sumptuous than other feasts [for they were at\ngreater expense, and practised greater gluttony with fish and various\nLenten meats than when the fasts were not observed], and not even the\nadversaries observe the form given in the canons.\n\nThis topic concerning traditions contains many and difficult\nquestions of controversy and we have actually experienced that\ntraditions are truly snares of consciences.  When they are exacted as\nnecessary, they torture in wonderful ways the conscience omitting any\nobservance [as godly hearts, indeed, experience when in the canonical\nhours they have omitted a compline, or offended against them in a\nsimilar way].  Again their abrogation has its own evils and its own\nquestions.  [On the other hand, to teach absolute freedom has also\nits doubts and questions, because the common people need outward\ndiscipline and instruction.] But we have an easy and plain case,\nbecause the adversaries condemn us for teaching that human traditions\ndo not merit the remission of sins.  Likewise they require universal\ntraditions, as they call them, as necessary for justification [and\nplace them in Christ's stead].  Here we have Paul as a constant\nchampion, who everywhere contends that these observances neither\njustify nor are necessary in addition to the righteousness of faith.\nAnd nevertheless we teach that in these matters the use of liberty is\nto be so controlled that the inexperienced may not be offended, and,\non account of the abuse of liberty, may not become more hostile to\nthe true doctrine of the Gospel, or that without a reasonable cause\nnothing in customary rites be changed, but that, in order to cherish\nharmony, such old customs be observed as can be observed without sin\nor without great inconvenience.  And in this very assembly we have\nshown sufficiently that for love's sake we do not refuse to observe\nadiaphora with others, even though they should have some disadvantage;\nbut we have judged that such public harmony as could indeed be\nproduced without offense to consciences ought to be preferred to all\nother advantages [all other less important matters].  But concerning\nthis entire subject we shall speak after a while, when we shall treat\nof vows and ecclesiastical power.\n\n\n\n\nPart 21\n\n\nArticle XVI: _Of Political Order._\n\nThe Sixteenth Article the adversaries receive without any exception,\nin which we have confessed that it is lawful for the Christian to\nbear civil office, sit in judgment, determine matters by the imperial\nlaws, and other laws in present force, appoint just punishments\nengage in just wars, act as a soldier, make legal contracts, hold\nproperty, take an oath when magistrates require it, contract marriage;\nfinally, that legitimate civil ordinances are good creatures of God\nand divine ordinances, which a Christian can use with safety.  This\nentire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ\nand a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the\nremarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature\nof our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual\n[inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit,\nbeginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and\nfaith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits\nus outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation\nin which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or the art of\nbuilding, or food, drink, air.  Neither does the Gospel bring new\nlaws concerning the civil state, but commands that we obey present\nlaws, whether they have been framed by heathen or by others, and that\nin this obedience we should exercise love.  For Carlstadt was insane\nin imposing upon us the judicial laws of Moses.  Concerning these\nsubjects, our theologians have written more fully, because the monks\ndiffused many pernicious opinions in the Church.  They called a\ncommunity of property the polity of the Gospel; they said that not to\nhold property, not to vindicate one's self at law [not to have wife\nand child], were evangelical counsels.  These opinions greatly\nobscure the Gospel and the spiritual kingdom [so that it was not\nunderstood at all what the Christian or spiritual kingdom of Christ\nis; they concocted the secular kingdom with the spiritual whence much\ntrouble and seditions, harmful teaching resulted], and are dangerous\nto the commonwealth.  For the Gospel does not destroy the State or\nthe family [buying, selling, and other civil regulations], but much\nrather approves them, and bids us obey them as a divine ordinance,\nnot only on account of punishment, but also on account of conscience.\n\nJulian the Apostate, Celsus, and very many others made the objection\nto Christians that the Gospel would rend asunder states, because it\nprohibited legal redress, and taught certain other things not at all\nsuited to political association.  And these questions wonderfully\nexercised Origen, Nazianzen, and others, although, indeed, they can\nbe most readily explained, if we keep in mind the fact that the\nGospel does not introduce laws concerning the civil state, but is the\nremission of sins and the beginning of a new life in the hearts of\nbelievers; besides, it not only approves outward governments, but\nsubjects us to them, Rom. 13, 1, just as we have been necessarily\nplaced under the laws of seasons, the changes of winter and summer,\nas divine ordinances.  [This is no obstacle to the spiritual kingdom.\n] The Gospel forbids private redress [in order that no one should\ninterfere with the office of the magistrate], and Christ inculcates\nthis so frequently with the design that the apostles should not think\nthat they ought to seize the governments from those who held\notherwise, just as the Jews dreamed concerning the kingdom of the\nMessiah, but that they might know they ought to teach concerning the\nspiritual kingdom that it does not change the civil state.  Therefore\nprivate redress is prohibited not by advice, but by a command, Matt.\n5, 39; Rom. 12, 19. Public redress which is made through the office\nof the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a\nwork of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1 sqq.  Now the different\nkinds of public redress are legal decisions, capital punishment, wars,\nmilitary service.  It is manifest how incorrectly many writers have\njudged concerning these matters [some teachers have taught such\npernicious errors that nearly all princes, lords, knights, servants\nregarded their proper estate as secular, ungodly, and damnable, etc.\nNor can it be fully expressed in words what an unspeakable peril and\ndamage has resulted from this to souls and consciences], because they\nwere in the error that the Gospel is an external, new and monastic\nform of government, and did not see that the Gospel brings eternal\nrighteousness to hearts [teaches how a person is redeemed, before God\nand in his conscience, from sin, hell, and the devil], while it\noutwardly approves the civil state.\n\nIt is also a most vain delusion that it is Christian perfection not\nto hold property.  For Christian perfection consists not in the\ncontempt of civil ordinances, but in dispositions of the heart, in\ngreat fear of God, in great faith, just as Abraham, David, Daniel,\neven in great wealth and while exercising civil power, were no less\nperfect than any hermits.  But the monks [especially the Barefoot\nmonks] have spread this outward hypocrisy before the eyes of men, so\nthat it could not be seen in what things true perfection exists.\nWith what praises have they brought forward this communion of\nproperty, as though it were evangelical!  But these praises have the\ngreatest danger, especially since they differ much from the\nScriptures.  For Scripture does not command that property be common,\nbut the Law of the Decalog, when it says, Ex. 20, 15: Thor shalt not\nsteal, distinguishes rights of ownership, and commands each one to\nhold what is his own.  Wyclif manifestly was raging when he said that\npriests were not allowed to hold property.  There are infinite\ndiscussions concerning contracts, in reference to which good\nconsciences can never be satisfied unless they know the rule that it\nis lawful for a Christian to make use of civil ordinances and laws.\nThis rule protects consciences when it teaches that contracts are\nlawful before God just to the extent that the magistrates or laws\napprove them.\n\nThis entire topic concerning civil affairs has been so clearly set\nforth by our theologians that very many good men occupied in the\nstate and in business have declared that they have been greatly\nbenefited, who before, troubled by the opinion of the monks, were in\ndoubt as to whether the Gospel allowed these civil offices and\nbusiness.  Accordingly, we have recounted these things in order that\nthose without also may understand that by the kind of doctrine which\nwe follow, the authority of magistrates and the dignity of all civil\nordinances are not undermined, but are all the more strengthened [and\nthat it is only this doctrine which gives true instruction as to how\neminently glorious an office, full of good Christian works, the\noffice of rulers is].  The importance of these matters was greatly\nobscured previously by those silly monastic opinions, which far\npreferred the hypocrisy of poverty and humility to the state and the\nfamily, although these have God's command, while this Platonic\ncommunion [monasticism] has not God's command.\n\n\n\n\nPart 22\n\n\nArticle XVII: _Of Christ's Return to Judgment._\n\nThe Seventeenth Article the adversaries receive without exception, in\nwhich we confess that at the consummation of the world Christ shall\nappear, and shall raise up all the dead, and shall give to the godly\neternal life and eternal joys, but shall condemn the ungodly to be\npunished with the devil without end.\n\n\n\n\nPart 23\n\n\nArticle XVIII: _Of Free Will._\n\nThe Eighteenth Article, Of Free Will, the adversaries receive,\nalthough they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case.\nThey add also a declamation that neither, with the Pelagians, is too\nmuch to be granted to the free will, nor, with the Manicheans, is all\nfreedom to be denied it.  Very well; but what difference is there\nbetween the Pelagians and our adversaries, since both hold that\nwithout the Holy Ghost men can love God and perform God's\ncommandments with respect to the substance of the acts, and can merit\ngrace and justification by works which reason performs by itself,\nwithout the Holy Ghost?  How many absurdities follow from these\nPelagian opinions, which are taught with great authority in the\nschools!  These Augustine, following Paul, refutes pith great\nemphasis, whose judgment we have recounted above in the article Of\nJustification.  (See p. 119 and 153.) Nor, indeed, do we deny liberty\nto the human will.  The human will has liberty in the choice of works\nand things which reason comprehends by itself.  It can to a certain\nextent render civil righteousness or the righteousness of works; it\ncan speak of God, offer to God a certain service by an outward work,\nobey magistrates, parents; in the choice of an outward work it can\nrestrain the hands from murder, from adultery, from theft.  Since\nthere is left in human nature reason and judgement concerning objects\nsubjected to the senses, choice between these things, and the liberty\nand power to render civil righteousness, are also left.  For\nScripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh which the carnal\nnature, i.e., reason renders by itself, without the Holy Ghost.\nAlthough the power of concupiscence is such that men more frequently\nobey evil dispositions than sound judgment.  And the devil, who is\nefficacious in the godless, as Paul says Eph. 2, 2, does not cease to\nincite this feeble nature to various offenses.  These are the reasons\nwhy even civil righteousness is rare among men, as we see that not\neven the philosophers themselves, who seem to have aspired after this\nrighteousness, attained it.  But it is false to say that he who\nperforms the works of the commandments without grace does not sin.\nAnd they add further that such works also merit _de congruo_ the\nremission of sins and justification.  For human hearts without the\nHoly Ghost are without the fear of God; without trust toward God,\nthey do not believe that they are heard, forgiven, helped, and\npreserved by God.  Therefore they are godless.  For neither can a\ncorrupt tree bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7, 18. And without faith\nit is impossible to please God, Heb. 11, 6.\n\nTherefore, although we concede free will the liberty and power to\nperform the outward works of the Law, yet we do not ascribe to free\nwill these spiritual matters, namely, truly to fear God, truly to\nbelieve God, truly to be confident and hold that God regards us,\nhears us, forgives us, etc. These are the true works of the First\nTable, which the heart cannot render without the Holy Ghost, as Paul\nsays, 1 Cor. 2, 14: The natural man, i.e., man using only natural\nstrength, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God [That is a\nperson who is not enlightened by the Spirit of God does not, by his\nnatural reason, receive anything of God's will and divine matters.]\nAnd this can be decided if men consider what their hearts believe\nconcerning God's will, whether they are truly confident that they are\nregarded and heard by God.  Even for saints to retain this faith [and,\nas Peter says (1 Ep. 1, 8), to risk and commit himself entirely to\nGod, whom he does not see, to love Christ, and esteem Him highly,\nwhom he does not see] is difficult, so far is it from existing in the\ngodless.  But it is conceived, as we have said above, when terrified\nhearts hear the Gospel and receive consolation [when we are born anew\nof the Holy Ghost].\n\nTherefore such a distribution is of advantage in which civil\nrighteousness is ascribed to the free will and spiritual\nrighteousness to the governing of the Holy Ghost in the regenerate.\nFor thus the outward discipline is retained, because all men ought to\nknow equally, both that God requires this civil righteousness [God\nwill not tolerate indecent, wild, reckless conduct], and that, in a\nmeasure, we can afford it.  And yet a distinction is shown between\nhuman and spiritual righteousness, between philosophical doctrine and\nthe doctrine of the Holy Ghost and it can be understood for what\nthere is need of the Holy Ghost.  Nor has this distribution been\ninvented by us, but Scripture most clearly teaches it.  Augustine\nalso treats of it, and recently it has been well treated of by\nWilliam of Paris, but it has been wickedly suppressed by those who\nhave dreamt that men can obey God's Law without the Holy Ghost, but\nthat the Holy Ghost is given in order that, in addition, it may be\nconsidered meritorious.\n\n\n\n\nPart 24\n\n\nArticle XIX: _Of the Cause of Sin._\n\nThe Nineteenth Article the adversaries receive, in which we confess\nthat, although God only and alone has framed all nature, and\npreserves all things which exist, yet [He is not the cause of sin,\nbut] the cause of sin is the will in the devil and men turning itself\naway from God, according to the saying of Christ concerning the devil,\nJohn 8, 44: When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.\n\n\n\n\nPart 25\n\n\nArticle XX: _Of Good Works._\n\nIn the Twentieth Article they distinctly lay down these words, namely,\nthat they reject and condemn our statement that men do not merit the\nremission of sins by good works.  [Mark this well!] They clearly\ndeclare that they reject and condemn this article.  What is to be\nsaid on a subject so manifest?  Here the framers of the _Confutation_\nopenly show by what spirit they are led.  For what in the Church is\nmore certain than that the remission of sins occurs freely for\nChrist's sake, that Christ, and not our works, is the propitiation\nfor sins, as Peter says, Acts 10, 43: To Him give all the prophets\nwitness that through His name, whosoever believeth on Him, shall\nreceive remission of sins?  [This strong testimony of all the holy\nprophets may duly be called a decree of the catholic Christian Church.\nFor even a single prophet is very highly esteemed by God and a\ntreasure worth the whole world.] To this Church of the prophets we\nwould rather assent than to these abandoned writers of the\nConfutation, who so impudently blaspheme Christ.  For although there\nwere writers who held that after the remission of sins men are just\nbefore God, not by faith, but by works themselves, yet they did not\nhold this, namely, that the remission of sins itself occurs on\naccount of our works, and not freely for Christ's sake.\n\nTherefore the blasphemy of ascribing Christ's honor to our works is\nnot to be endured.  These theologians are now entirely without shame\nif they dare to bring such an opinion into the Church.  Nor do we\ndoubt that His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty and very many of the\nprinces would not have allowed this passage to remain in the\n_Confutation_ if they had been admonished of it.  Here we could cite\ninfinite testimonies from Scripture and from the Fathers [that this\narticle is certainly divine and true, and this is the sacred and\ndivine truth.  For there is hardly a syllable, hardly a leaf in the\nBible, in the principal books of the Holy Scriptures where this is\nnot clearly stated.] But also above we have said enough on this\nsubject.  And there is no need of more testimonies for one who knows\nwhy Christ has been given to us, who knows that Christ is the\npropitiation for our sins.  [God-fearing, pious hearts that know well\nwhy Christ has been given, who for all the possessions and kingdoms\nof the world would not be without Christ as our only Treasure, our\nonly Mediator and Redeemer must here be shocked and terrified that\nGod's holy Word and Truth should be so openly despised and condemned\nby poor men.] Isaiah says, 53, 6: The Lord hath laid on Him the\niniquities of us all.  The adversaries, on the other hand, [accuse\nIsaiah and the entire Bible of lying and teach that God lays our\niniquities not on Christ, but on our [beggarly] works.  Neither are\nwe disposed to mention here the sort of works [rosaries, pilgrimages,\nand the like] which they teach.  We see that a horrible decree has\nbeen prepared against us, which would terrify us still more if we\nwere contending concerning doubtful or trifling subjects.  Now, since\nour consciences understand that by the adversaries the manifest truth\nis condemned, whose defense is necessary for the Church and increases\nthe glory of Christ, we easily despise the terrors of the world, and\nwith a strong spirit will bear whatever is to be suffered for the\nglory of Christ and the advantage of the Church.  Who would not\nrejoice to die in the confession of such articles as that we obtain\nthe remission of sins by faith freely for Christ's sake, that we do\nnot merit the remission of sins by our works?  [Experience shows--and\nthe monks themselves must admit it--that] The consciences of the\npious will have no sufficiently sure consolation against the terrors\nof sin and of death, and against the devil soliciting to despair [and\nwho in a moment blows away all our works like dust], if they do not\nknow that they ought to be confident that they have the remission of\nsins freely for Christ's sake.  This faith sustains and quickens\nhearts in that most violent conflict with despair [in the great agony\nof death, in the great anguish, when no creature can help, yea, when\nwe must depart from this entire visible creation into another state\nand world, and must die].\n\nTherefore the cause is one which is worthy that for its sake we\nshould refuse no danger.  Whosoever you are that has assented to our\nConfession, \"do not yield to the wicked, but, on the contrary, go\nforward the more boldly,\" when the adversaries endeavor, by means of\nterrors and tortures and punishments, to drive away from you that\nconsolation which has been tendered to the entire Church in this\narticle of ours [but with all cheerfulness rely confidently and\ngladly on God and the Lord Jesus, and joyfully confess this manifest\ntruth in opposition to the tyranny, wrath, threatening, and terrors\nof all the world, yea, in opposition to the daily murders and\npersecution of tyrants.  For who would suffer to have taken from him\nthis great, yea, everlasting consolation on which the entire\nsalvation of the whole Christian Church depends?  Any one who picks\nup the Bible and reads it earnestly will soon observe that this\ndoctrine has its foundation everywhere in the Bible].  Testimonies of\nScripture will not be wanting to one seeking them, which will\nestablish his mind.  For Paul at the top of his voice, as the saying\nis, cries out, Rom. 3, 24 f., and 4, 16, that sins are freely\nremitted for Christ's sake.  It is of faith, he says, that it might\nbe by grace, to the end the promise might be sure.  That is, if the\npromise would depend upon our works, it would not be sure.  If\nremission of sins would be given on account of our works, when would\nwe know that we had obtained it, when would a terrified conscience\nfind a work which it would consider sufficient to appease God's\nwrath?  But we spoke of the entire matter above.  Thence let the\nreader derive testimonies.  For the unworthy treatment of the subject\nhas forced from us the present, not discussion, but complaint that on\nthis topic they have distinctly recorded themselves as disapproving\nof this article of ours, that we obtain remission of sins not on\naccount of our works, but by faith and freely on account of Christ.\n\nThe adversaries also add testimonies to their own condemnation, and\nit is worth while to recite several of them.  They quote from Peter,\n2. Ep. 1, 10: Give diligence to make your calling sure, etc..  Now\nyou see, reader, that our adversaries have not wasted labor in\nlearning logic, but have the art of inferring from the Scriptures\nwhatever pleases them [whether it is in harmony with the Scriptures\nor out of harmony; whether it is correctly or incorrectly concluded.\nFor they conclude thus:] \"Make your calling sure by good works.\"\nTherefore works merit the remission of sins.  A very agreeable mode\nof reasoning, if one would argue thus concerning a person sentenced\nto capital punishment, whose punishment has been remitted: \"The\nmagistrate commands that hereafter you abstain from that which\nbelongs to another.  Therefore you have merited the remission of the\npenalty, because you are now abstaining from what belongs to another.\"\nThus to argue is to make a cause out of that which is not a cause.\nFor Peter speaks of works following the remission of sins, and\nteaches why they should be done, namely, that the calling may be sure,\ni.e., lest they may fall from their calling if they sin again.  Do\ngood works that you may persevere in your calling, that you [do not\nfall away again, grow cold and] may not lose the gifts of your\ncalling, which were given you before, and not on account of works\nthat follow, and which now are retained by faith, for faith does not\nremain in those who lose the Holy Ghost, who reject repentance, just\nas we have said above (p. 253) that faith exists in repentance.\n\nThey add other testimonies cohering no better.  Lastly they say that\nthis opinion was condemned a thousand years before, in the time of\nAugustine.  This also is quite false.  For the Church of Christ\nalways held that the remission of sins is obtained freely.  Yea, the\nPelagians were condemned, who contended that grace is given on\naccount of our works.  Besides, we have above shown sufficiently that\nwe hold that good works ought necessarily to follow faith.  For we do\nnot make void the Law, says Paul, Rom. 3, 31; yea, we establish the\nLaw, because when by faith we have received the Holy Ghost, the\nfulfilling of the Law necessarily follows, by which love, patience,\nchastity, and other fruits of the Spirit gradually grow.\n\n\n\n\nPart 26\n\n\nThe Twenty-first Article they absolutely condemn, because we do not\nrequire the invocation of saints.  Nor on any topic do they speak\nmore eloquently and with more prolixity.  Nevertheless they do not\neffect anything else than that the saints should be honored; likewise,\nthat the saints who live pray for others; as though, indeed, the\ninvocation of dead saints were on that account necessary.  They cite\nCyprian, because he asked Cornelius while yet alive to pray for his\nbrothers when departing.  By this example they prove the invocation\nof the dead.  They quote also Jerome against Vigilantius.  \"On this\nfield\" [in this matter], they say, \"eleven hundred years ago, Jerome\novercame Vigilantius.\" Thus the adversaries triumph, as though the\nwar were already ended.  Nor do those asses see that in Jerome,\nagainst Vigilantius, there is not a syllable concerning invocation.\nHe speaks concerning honors for the saints, not concerning invocation.\nNeither have the rest of the ancient writers before Gregory made\nmention of invocation.  Certainly this invocation, with these\nopinions which the adversaries now teach concerning the application\nof merits, has not the testimonies of the ancient writers.\n\nOur Confession approves honors to the saints.  For here a threefold\nhonor is to be approved.  The first is thanksgiving.  For we ought to\ngive thanks to God because He has shown examples of mercy, because He\nhas shown that He wishes to save men; because He has given teachers\nor other gifts to the Church.  And these gifts, as they are the\ngreatest, should be amplified, and the saints themselves should be\npraised, who have faithfully used these gifts, just as Christ praises\nfaithful business-men, Matt. 25, 21. 23. The second service is the\nstrengthening of our faith when we see the denial forgiven Peter we\nalso are encouraged to believe the more that grace truly superabounds\nover sin, Rom. 5, 20. The third honor is the imitation, first, of\nfaith, then of the other virtues which every one should imitate\naccording to his calling.  These true honors the adversaries do not\nrequire.  They dispute only concerning invocation, which, even though\nit would have no danger, nevertheless is not necessary.\n\nBesides, we also grant that the angels pray for us.  For there is a\ntestimony in Zech. 1, 12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how\nlong wilt Thou not have mercy on Jerusalem?  Although concerning the\nsaints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church\nuniversal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in\ngeneral, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is\nextant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book\nof Maccabees, 15, 14.\n\nMoreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so\nmuch, yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although\nour Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the\ninvocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid.\nBut since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be\nproduced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it\nfollows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation\nthat is certain.  And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how\ndo we know that God approves this invocation?  Whence do we know\nwithout the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the\nprayers of each one?  Some plainly ascribe divinity to the saints\nnamely, that they discern the silent thoughts of the minds in us.\nThey dispute concerning morning and evening knowledge, perhaps\nbecause they doubt whether they hear us in the morning or the evening.\nThey invent these things, not in order to treat the saints with\nhonor, but to defend lucrative services.  Nothing can be produced by\nthe adversaries against this reasoning, that, since invocation does\nnot have a testimony from God's Word, it cannot be affirmed that the\nsaints understand our invocation, or, even if they understand it,\nthat God approves it.  Therefore the adversaries ought not to force\nus to an uncertain matter, because a prayer without faith is not\nprayer.  For when they cite the example of the Church, it is evident\nthat this is a new custom in the Church; for although the old prayers\nmake mention of the saints, yet they do not invoke the saints.\nAlthough also this new invocation in the Church is dissimilar to the\ninvocation of individuals.\n\nAgain, the adversaries not only require invocation in the worship of\nthe saints, but also apply the merits of the saints to others, and\nmake of the saints not only intercessors, but also propitiators.\nThis is in no way to be endured.  For here the honor belonging only\nto Christ is altogether transferred to the saints.  For they make\nthem mediators and propitiators, and although they make a distinction\nbetween mediators of intercession and mediators [the Mediator] of\nredemption, yet they plainly make of the saints mediators of\nredemption.  But even that they are mediators of intercession they\ndeclare without testimony of Scripture, which, be it said ever so\nreverently, nevertheless obscures Christ's office, and transfers the\nconfidence of mercy due Christ to the saints.  For men imagine that\nChrist is more severe and the saints more easily appeased, and they\ntrust rather to the mercy of the saints than to the mercy of Christ,\nand fleeing from Christ [as from a tyrant], they seek the saints.\nThus they actually make of them mediators of redemption.\n\nTherefore we shall show that they truly make of the saints, not only\nintercessors, but propitiators, i.e., mediators of redemption.  Here\nwe do not as yet recite the abuses of the common people [how manifest\nidolatry is practiced at pilgrimages].  We are still speaking of the\nopinions of the Doctors.  As regards the rest, even the inexperienced\n[common people] can judge.\n\nIn a propitiator these two things concur.  In the first place, there\nought to be a word of God from which we may certainly know that God\nwishes to pity, and hearken to, those calling upon Him through this\npropitiator.  There is such a promise concerning Christ, John 16 23:\nWhatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you.\nConcerning the saints there is no such promise.  Therefore\nconsciences cannot be firmly confident that by the invocation of\nsaints we are heard.  This invocation, therefore, is not made from\nfaith.  Then we have also the command to call upon Christ, according\nto Matt. 11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor, etc., which\ncertainly is said also to us.  And Isaiah says, 11,10: In that day\nthere shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign to\nthe people; to it shall the Gentiles seek.  And Ps. 45, 12: Even the\nrich among the people shall entreat Thy favor.  And Ps. 72, 11. 16:\nYea, all kings shall fall down before Him.  And shortly after: Prayer\nalso shall be made for Him continually.  And in John 6, 23 Christ\nsays: That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father.\nAnd Paul, 2 Thess. 2, 16. 17, says, praying: Now our Lord Jesus\nChrist Himself, and God, even our Father,... comfort your hearts and\nstablish you.  [All these passages refer to Christ.] But concerning\nthe invocation of saints, what commandment, what example can the\nadversaries produce from the Scriptures?  The second matter in a\npropitiator is, that his merits have been presented as those which\nmake satisfaction for others, which are bestowed by divine imputation\non others, in order that through these, just as by their own merits,\nthey may be accounted righteous.  As when any friend pays a debt for\na friend, the debtor is freed by the merit of another, as though it\nwere by his own.  Thus the merits of Christ are bestowed upon us, in\norder that, when we believe in Him, we may be accounted righteous by\nour confidence in Christ's merits as though we had merits of our own.\n\nAnd from both, namely, from the promise and the bestowment of merits,\nconfidence in mercy arises [upon both parts must a Christian prayer\nbe founded].  Such confidence in the divine promise, and likewise in\nthe merits of Christ, ought to be brought forward when we pray.  For\nwe ought to be truly confident, both that for Christ's sake we are\nheard, and that by His merits we have a reconciled Father.\n\nHere the adversaries first bid us invoke the saints, although they\nhave neither God's promise, nor a command, nor an example from\nScripture.  And yet they cause greater confidence in the mercy of the\nsaints to be conceived than in that of Christ, although Christ bade\nus come to Him and not to the saints.  Secondly, they apply the\nmerits of the saints, just as the merits of Christ, to others, they\nbid us trust in the merits of the saints as though we were accounted\nrighteous on account of the merits of the saints, in like manner as\nwe are accounted righteous by the merits of Christ.  Here we\nfabricate nothing.  In indulgences they say that they apply the\nmerits of the saints [as satisfactions for our sins].  And Gabriel,\nthe interpreter of the canon of the Mass, confidently declares:\nAccording to the order instituted by God we should betake ourselves\nto the aid of the saints, in order that we may be saved by their\nmerits and vows.  These are the words of Gabriel.  And nevertheless\nin the books and sermons of the adversaries still more absurd things\nare read here and there.  What is it to make propitiators if this is\nnot?  They are altogether made equal to Christ if we must trust that\nwe are saved by their merits.\n\nBut where has this arrangement, to which he refers when he says that\nwe ought to resort to the aid of the saints, been instituted by God?\nLet him produce an example or command from the Scriptures.  Perhaps\nthey derive this arrangement from the courts of kings, where friends\nmust be employed as intercessors.  But if a king has appointed a\ncertain intercessor, he will not desire that eases be brought to him\nthrough others.  Thus, since Christ has been appointed Intercessor\nand High Priest, why do we seek others?  [What can the adversaries\nsay in reply to this?]\n\nHere and there this form of absolution is used: The passion of our\nlord Jesus Christ the merits of the most blessed Virgin Mary and of\nall the saints, be to thee for the remission of sins.  Here the\nabsolution is pronounced on the supposition that we are reconciled\nand accounted righteous not only by the merits of Christ, but also by\nthe merits of the other saints.  Some of us have seen a doctor of\ntheology dying, for consoling whom a certain theologian, a monk, was\nemployed.  He pressed on the dying man nothing but this prayer:\nMother of grace, protect us from the enemy; receive us in the hour of\ndeath.\n\nGranting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive\nsouls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan],\ndoes she quicken?  What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these\nthings?  Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors,\nnevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather\nwishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of her\nfaith and her humility].  But the subject itself declares that in\npublic opinion the blessed Virgin has succeeded altogether to the\nplace of Christ.  Men have invoked her, have trusted in her mercy,\nthrough her have desired to appease Christ, as though He were not a\nPropitiator, but only a dreadful judge and avenger.  We believe,\nhowever, that we must not trust that the merits of the saints are\napplied to us, that on account of these God is reconciled to us, or\naccounts us just, or saves us.  For we obtain remission of sins only\nby the merits of Christ, when we believe in Him.  Of the other saints\nit has been said, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own reward\naccording to his own labor, i.e., they cannot mutually bestow their\nown merits, the one upon the other, as the monks sell the merits of\ntheir orders.  Even Hilary says of the foolish virgins: And as the\nfoolish virgins could not go forth with their lamps extinguished,\nthey besought those who were prudent to lend them oil; to whom they\nreplied that they could not give it because peradventure there might\nnot be enough for all; i.e., no one can be aided by the works and\nmerits of another, because it is necessary for every one to buy oil\nfor his own lamp.  [Here he points out that none of us can aid\nanother by other people's works or merits.]\n\nSince, therefore, the adversaries teach us to place confidence in the\ninvocation of saints, although they have neither the Word of God nor\nthe example of Scripture [of the Old or of the New Testament]; since\nthey apply the merits of the saints on behalf of others, not\notherwise than they apply the merits of Christ, and transfer the\nhonor belonging only to Christ to the saints, we can receive neither\ntheir opinions concerning the worship of the saints, nor the practise\nof invocation.  For we know that confidence is to be placed in the\nintercession of Christ, because this alone has God's promise.  We\nknow that the merits of Christ alone are a propitiation for us.  On\naccount of the merits of Christ we are accounted righteous when we\nbelieve in Him, as the text says, Rom. 9, 33 (cf. 1 Pet. 2, 6 and Is.\n28, 16): Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be confounded.  Neither\nare we to trust that we are accounted righteous by the merits of the\nblessed Virgin or of the other saints.\n\nWith the learned this error also prevails namely, that to each saint\na particular administration has been committed, that Anna bestows\nriches [protects from poverty], Sebastian keeps off pestilence,\nValentine heals epilepsy, George protects horsemen.  These opinions\nhave clearly sprung from heathen examples.  For thus, among the\nRomans Juno was thought to enrich, Febris to keep off fever, Castor\nand Pollux to protect horsemen, etc. Even though we should imagine\nthat the invocation of saints were taught with the greatest prudence,\nyet since the example is most dangerous, why is it necessary to\ndefend it when it has no command or testimony from God's Word?  Aye,\nit has not even the testimony of the ancient writers.  First because,\nas I have said above, when other mediators are sought in addition to\nChrist, and confidence is put in others, the entire knowledge of\nChrist is suppressed.  The subject shows this.  In the beginning,\nmention of the saints seems to have been admitted with a design that\nis endurable, as in the ancient prayers.  Afterwards invocation\nfollowed, and abuses that are prodigious and more than heathenish\nfollowed invocation.  From invocation the next step was to images;\nthese also were worshiped, and a virtue was supposed to exist in\nthese, just as magicians imagine that a virtue exists in images of\nthe heavenly bodies carved at a particular time.  In a certain\nmonastery we [some of us] have seen a statue of the blessed Virgin,\nwhich moved automatically by a trick [within by a string], so as to\nseem either to turn away from [those who did not make a large\noffering] or nod to those making request.\n\nStill the fabulous stories concerning the saints, which are publicly\ntaught with great authority, surpass the marvelous tales of the\nstatues and pictures.  Barbara, amidst her torments, asks for the\nreward that no one who would invoke her should die without the\nEucharist.  Another, standing on one foot, recited daily the whole\npsaltery.  Some wise man painted [for children] Christophorus [which\nin German means Bearer of Christ], in order by the allegory to\nsignify that there ought to be great strength of mind in those who\nwould bear Christ, i.e., who would teach or confess the Gospel,\nbecause it is necessary to undergo the greatest dangers [for they\nmust wade by night through the great sea, i.e., endure all kinds of\ntemptations and dangers].  Then the foolish monks taught among the\npeople that they ought to invoke Chistophorus, as though such a\nPolyphemus [such a giant who bore Christ through the sea] had once\nexisted.  And although the saints performed very great deeds, either\nuseful to the state or affording private examples the remembrance of\nwhich would conduce much both toward strengthening faith and toward\nfollowing their example in the administration of affairs, no one has\nsearched for these from true narratives.  [Although God Almighty\nthrough His saints, as a peculiar people, has wrought many great\nthings in both realms, in the Church and in worldly transactions;\nalthough there are many great examples in the lives of the saints\nwhich would be very profitable to princes and lords, to true pastors\nand guardians of souls, for the government both of the world and of\nthe Church, especially for strengthening faith in God, yet they have\npassed these by, and preached the most insignificant matters\nconcerning the saints, concerning their hard beds their hair shirts,\netc., which, for the greater part, are falsehoods.] Yet indeed it is\nof advantage to hear how holy men administered governments [as in the\nHoly Scriptures it is narrated of the kings of Israel and Judah],\nwhat calamities, what dangers they underwent, how holy men were of\naid to kings in great dangers, how they taught the Gospel, what\nencounters they had with heretics.  Examples of mercy are also of\nservice, as when we see the denial forgiven Peter, when we see\nCyprian forgiven for having been a magician, when we see Augustine,\nhaving experienced the power of faith in sickness steadily affirming\nthat God truly hears the prayers of believers.  It was profitable\nthat such examples as these, which contain admonitions for either\nfaith or fear or the administration of the state, be recited.  But\ncertain triflers, endowed with no knowledge either of faith or for\ngoverning states, have invented stories in imitation of poems, in\nwhich there are nothing but superstitious examples concerning certain\nprayers, certain fastings, and certain additions of service for\nbringing in gain [where there are nothing but examples as to how the\nsaints wore hair shirts, how they prayed at the seven canonical hours\nhow they lived upon bread and water].  Such are the miracles that\nhave been invented concerning rosaries and similar ceremonies.  Nor\nis there need here to recite examples.  For the legends, as they call\nthem, and the mirrors of examples, and the rosaries, in which there\nare very many things not unlike the true narratives of Lucian, are\nextant.\n\nThe bishops, theologians, and monks applaud these monstrous and\nwicked stories [this abomination set up against Christ, this\nblasphemy, these scandalous, shameless lies, these lying preachers;\nand they have permitted them so long, to the great injury of\nconsciences, that it is terrible to think of it] because they aid\nthem to their daily bread.  They do not tolerate us, who, in order\nthat the honor and office of Christ may be more conspicuous, do not\nrequire the invocation of saints, and censure the abuses in the\nworship of saints.  And although [even their own theologians], all\ngood men everywhere [a long time before Dr. Luther began to write] in\nthe correction of these abuses, greatly longed for either the\nauthority of the bishops or the diligence of the preachers,\nnevertheless our adversaries in the _Confutation_ altogether pass\nover vices that are even manifest, as though they wish, by the\nreception of the Confutation, to compel us to approve even the most\nnotorious abuses.\n\nThus the _Confutation_ has been deceitfully written, not only on this\ntopic, but almost everywhere.  [They pretend that they are as pure as\ngold, that they have never muddled the water.] There is no passage in\nwhich they make a distinction between the manifest abuses and their\ndogmas.  And nevertheless, if there are any of sounder mind among\nthem they confess that many false opinions inhere in the doctrine of\nthe scholastics and canonists, and, besides, that in such ignorance\nand negligence of the pastors many abuses crept into the Church.  For\nLuther was not [the only one nor] the first to complain of\n[innumerable] public abuses.  Many learned and excellent men long\nbefore these times deplored the abuses of the Mass, confidence in\nmonastic observances, services to the saints intended to yield a\nrevenue, the confusion of the doctrine concerning repentance\n[concerning Christ], which ought to be as clear and plain in the\nChurch as possible [without which there cannot be nor remain a\nChristian Church].  We ourselves have heard that excellent\ntheologians desire moderation in the scholastic doctrine which\ncontains much more for philosophical quarrels than for piety.  And\nnevertheless, among these the older ones are generally nearer\nScripture than are the more recent.  Thus their theology degenerated\nmore and more.  Neither had many good men, who from the very first\nbegan to be friendly to Luther, any other reason than that they saw\nthat he was freeing the minds of men from these labyrinths of most\nconfused and infinite discussions which exist among the scholastic\ntheologians and canonists, and was teaching things profitable for\ngodliness.\n\nThe adversaries, therefore, have not acted candidly in passing over\nthe abuses when they wished us to assent to the Confutation.  And if\nthey wished to care for the interests of the Church [and of Buffeted\nconsciences, and not rather to maintain their pomp and avarice]\nespecially on that topic, at this occasion they ought to exhort our\nmost excellent Emperor to take measures for the correction of abuses\n[which furnish grounds for derision among the Turks, the Jews, and\nall unbelievers], as we observe plainly enough that he is most\ndesirous of healing and well establishing the Church.  But the\nadversaries do not act as to aid the most honorable and most holy\nwill of the Emperor, but so as in every way to crush [the truth and]\nus.  Many signs show that they have little anxiety concerning the\nstate of the Church.  [They lose little sleep from concern that\nChristian doctrine and the pure Gospel be preached.] They take no\npains that there should be among the people a summary of the dogmas\nof the Church.  [The office of the ministry they permit to be quite\ndesolate.] They defend manifest abuses [they continue every day to\nshed innocent blood] by new and unusual cruelty.  They allow no\nsuitable teachers in the churches.  Good men can easily judge whither\nthese things tend.  But in this way they have no regard to the\ninterest either of their own authority or of the Church.  For after\nthe good teachers have been killed and sound doctrine suppressed,\nfanatical spirits will rise up, whom the adversaries will not be able\nto restrain, who both will disturb the Church with godless dogmas,\nand will overthrow the entire ecclesiastical government, which we are\nvery greatly desirous of maintaining.\n\nTherefore, most excellent Emperor Charles for the sake of the glory\nof Christ, which we have no doubt that you desire to praise and\nmagnify, we beseech you not to assent to the violent counsels of our\nadversaries, but to seek other honorable ways of so establishing\nharmony that godly consciences are not burdened, that no cruelty is\nexercised against innocent men, as we have hitherto seen, and that\nsound doctrine is not suppressed in the Church.  To God most of all\nyou owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintain\nsound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who\nteach what is right.  For God demands this when He honors kings with\nHis own name and calls them gods, saying, Ps. 82, 6: I have said, Ye\nare gods, namely, that they should attend to the preservation and\npropagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the\nearth, and, as the vicars of God, should defend the life and safety\nof the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers].\n\n\n\n\nPart 27\n\n\nArticle XXII (X): _Of Both Kinds in the Lord's Supper._\n\nIt cannot be doubted that it is godly and in accordance with the\ninstitution of Christ and the words of Paul to use both parts in the\nLord's Supper.  For Christ instituted both parts, and instituted them\nnot for a part of the Church, but for the entire Church.  For not\nonly the presbyters, but the entire Church uses the Sacrament by the\nauthority of Christ, and not by human authority, and this, we suppose,\nthe adversaries acknowledge.  Now, if Christ has instituted it for\nthe entire Church, why is one kind denied to a part of the Church?\nWhy is the use of the other kind prohibited?  Why is the ordinance of\nChrist changed, especially when He Himself calls it His testament?\nBut if it is not allowable to annul man's testament, much less will\nit be allowable to annul the testament of Christ.  And Paul says, 1\nCor. 11, 23 ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he\ndelivered.  But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text,\n1 Cor. 11, clearly shows.  This do [in remembrance of Me], he says\nfirst concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words\nconcerning the cup [the blood of Christ].  And then: Let a man\nexamine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that\ncup.  [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has\ninstituted the Sacrament.  And, indeed, he says before that those who\nwill use the Lord's Supper should use both.  It is evident, therefore,\nthat the Sacrament was instituted for the entire Church.  And the\ncustom still remains in the Greek churches, and also once obtained in\nthe Latin churches, as Cyprian and Jerome testify.  For thus Jerome\nsays on Zephaniah: The priests who administer the Eucharist, and\ndistribute the Lord's blood to the people, etc. The Council of Toledo\ngives the same testimony.  Nor would it be difficult to accumulate a\ngreat multitude of testimonies.  Here we exaggerate nothing; we but\nleave the prudent reader to determine what should be held concerning\nthe divine ordinance [whether it is proper to prohibit and change an\nordinance and institution of Christ].\n\nThe adversaries in the _Confutation_ do not endeavor to [comfort the\nconsciences or] excuse the Church, to which one part of the Sacrament\nhas been denied.  This would have been becoming to good and religious\nmen.  For a strong reason for excusing the Church, and instructing\nconsciences to whom only a part of the Sacrament could be granted,\nshould have been sought.  Now these very men maintain that it is\nright to prohibit the other part, and forbid that the use of both\nparts be allowed.  First, they imagine that, in the beginning of the\nChurch, it was the custom at some places that only one part was\nadministered.  Nevertheless they are not able to produce any ancient\nexample of this matter.  But they cite the passages in which mention\nis made of bread, as in Luke 24, 35 where it is written that the\ndisciples recognized Christ in the breaking of bread.  They quote\nalso other passages, Acts 2, 42. 46; 20, 7, concerning the breaking\nof bread.  But although we do not greatly oppose if some receive\nthese passages as referring to the Sacrament, yet it does not follow\nthat one part only was given, because, according to the ordinary\nusage of language, by the naming of one part the other is also\nsignified.  They refer also to Lay Communion which was not the use of\nonly one kind, but of both; and whenever priests are commanded to use\nLay Communion [for a punishment are not to consecrate themselves, but\nto receive Communion, however, of both kinds from another], it is\nmeant that they have been removed from the ministry of consecration.\nNeither are the adversaries ignorant of this, but they abuse the\nignorance of the unlearned, who, when they hear of Lay Communion,\nimmediately dream of the custom of our time, by which only a part of\nthe Sacrament is given to the laymen.\n\nAnd consider their impudence.  Gabriel recounts among other reasons\nwhy both parts are not given that a distinction should be made\nbetween laymen and presbyters.  And it is credible that the chief\nreason why the prohibition of the one part is defended is this,\nnamely, that the dignity of the order may be the more highly exalted\nby a religious rite.  To say nothing more severe, this is a human\ndesign; and whither this tends can easily be judged.  In the\n_Confutation_ they also quote concerning the sons of Eli that after\nthe loss of the high-priesthood, they were to seek the one part\npertaining to the priests, 1 Sam. 2, 36 [the text reads: Every one\nthat is left in thine house shall come and crouch him for a piece of\nsilver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee,\ninto one of the priest's offices (German: _Lieber, lass mich zu einem\nPriesterteil_) that I may eat a piece of bread].  Here they say that\nthe use of one kind was signified.  And they add: \"Thus, therefore,\nour laymen ought also to be content, with one part pertaining to the\npriests, with one kind.\" The adversaries [the masters of the\n_Confutation_ are quite shameless, rude asses, and] are clearly\ntrifling when they are transferring the history of the posterity of\nEli to the Sacrament.  The punishment of Eli is there described.\nWill they also say this, that as a punishment the laymen have been\nremoved from the other party [They are quite foolish and mad.] The\nSacrament was instituted to console and comfort terrified minds when\nthey believe that the flesh of Christ given for the life of the world,\nis food, when they believe that, being joined to Christ [through\nthis food], they are made alive.  But the adversaries argue that\nlaymen are removed from the other part as a punishment.  \"They ought,\"\nthey say, \"to be content.\" This is sufficient for a despot.  [That,\nsurely, sounds proud and defiant enough.] But [my lords, may we ask\nthe reason] why ought they?  \"The reason must not be asked but let\nwhatever the theologians say be law.\" [Is whatever you wish and\nwhatever you say to be sheer truth?  See now and be astonished how\nshameless and impudent the adversaries are: they dare to set up their\nown words as sheer commands of lords, they frankly say: The laymen\nmust be content.  But what if they must not?] This is a concoction of\nEck.  For we recognize those vainglorious words, which if we would\nwish to criticize, there would be no want of language.  For you see\nhow great the impudence is.  He commands, as a tyrant in the\ntragedies: \"Whether they wish or not, they must be content.\" Will the\nreasons which he cites excuse, in the judgment of God, those who\nprohibit a part of the Sacrament, and rage against men using an\nentire Sacrament?  [Are they to take comfort in the fact that it is\nrecorded concerning the sons of Eli: They will go begging?  That will\nbe a shuffling excuse at the judgment-seat of God.] If they make the\nprohibition in order that there should be a distinguishing mark of\nthe order, this very reason ought to move us not to assent to the\nadversaries, even though we would be disposed in other respects to\ncomply with their custom.  There are other distinguishing marks of\nthe order of priests and of the people, but it is not obscure what\ndesign they have for defending this distinction so earnestly.  That\nwe may not seem to detract from the true worth of the order, we will\nnot say more concerning this shrewd design.\n\nThey also allege the danger of spilling and certain similar things,\nwhich do not have force sufficient to change the ordinance of Christ.\n[They allege more dreams like these for the sake of which it would\nbe improper to change the ordinance of Christ.] And, indeed, if we\nassume that we are free to use either one part or both, how can the\nprohibition [to use both kinds] be defended?  Although the Church\ndoes not assume to itself the liberty to convert the ordinances of\nChrist into matters of indifference.  We indeed excuse the Church\nwhich has borne the injury [the poor consciences which have been\ndeprived of one part by force], since it could not obtain both parts;\nbut the authors who maintain that the use of the entire Sacrament is\njustly prohibited, and who now not only prohibit, but even\nexcommunicate and violently persecute those using an entire Sacrament,\nwe do not excuse.  Let them see to it how they will give an account\nto God for their decisions.  Neither is it to be judged immediately\nthat the Church determines or approves whatever the pontiffs\ndetermine, especially since Scripture prophesies concerning the\nbishops and pastors to effect this as Ezekiel says, 7, 28: The Law\nshall perish from the priest [there will be priests or bishops who\nwill know no command or law of God].\n\n\n\n\nPart 28\n\n\nArticle XXIII (XI): _Of the Marriage of Priests._\n\n\nDespite the great infamy of their defiled celibacy, the adversaries\nhave the presumption not only to defend the pontifical law by the\nwicked and false pretext of the divine name, but even to exhort the\nEmperor and princes, to the disgrace and infamy of the Roman Empire,\nnot to tolerate the marriage of priests.  For thus they speak.\n[Although the great, unheard-of lewdness, fornication, and adultery\namong priests, monks, etc., at the great abbeys, in other churches\nand cloisters, has become so notorious throughout the world that\npeople sing and talk about it, still the adversaries who have\npresented the _Confutation_ are so blind and without shame that they\ndefend the law of the Pope by which marriage is prohibited, and that,\nwith the specious claim that they are defending a spiritual state.\nMoreover, although it would be proper for them to be heartily ashamed\nof the exceedingly shameful, lewd, abandoned loose life of the\nwretches in their abbeys and cloisters, although on this account\nalone they should not have the courage to show their face in broad\ndaylight, although their evil, restless heart and conscience ought to\ncause them to tremble, to stand aghast, and to be afraid to lift\ntheir eyes to our excellent Emperor, who loves uprightness, still\nthey have the courage of the hangman, they act like the very devil\nand like all reckless, wanton people, proceeding in blind defiance\nand forgetful of all honor and decency.  And these pure chaste\ngentlemen dare to admonish His Imperial Majesty, the Electors and\nPrinces not to tolerate the marriage of priests _ad infamiam et\nignominiam imperti_, that is, to ward off shame and disgrace from the\nRoman Empire.  For these are their words, as if their shameful life\nwere a great honor and glory to the Church.]\n\nWhat greater impudence has ever been read of in any history than this\nof the adversaries?  [Such shameless advocates before a Roman Emperor\nwill not easily be found.  If all the world did not know them, if\nmany godly, upright people among them, their own canonical brethren,\nhad not complained long ago of their shameful, lewd, indecent conduct,\nif their vile, abominable, ungodly, lewd, heathenish, Epicurean life,\nand the dregs of all filthiness at Rome were not quite manifest, one\nmight think that their great purity and their inviolate virgin\nchastity were the reason why they could not bear to hear the word\nwoman or marriage pronounced, and why they baptize holy matrimony,\nwhich the Pope himself calls a sacrament, _infamiam imperil_.] For\nthe arguments which they use we shall afterwards review.  Now let the\nwise reader consider this, namely, what shame these good-for-nothing\nmen have who say that marriages [which the Holy Scriptures praise\nmost highly and command] produce infamy and disgrace to the\ngovernment, as though, indeed, this public infamy of flagitious and\nunnatural lusts which glow among these very holy fathers, who feign\nthat they are Curii and live like bacchanals, were a great ornament\nto the Church!  And most things which these men do with the greatest\nlicense cannot even be named without a breach of modesty.  And these\ntheir lusts they ask you to defend with your chaste right hand,\nEmperor Charles (whom even certain ancient predictions name as the\nking of modest face, for the saying appears concerning you: \"One\nmodest in face shall reign everywhere\").  For they ask that, contrary\nto divine law, contrary to the law of nations, contrary to the canons\nof Councils you sunder marriages, in order to impose merely for the\nsake of marriage atrocious punishments upon innocent men, to put to\ndeath priests, whom even barbarians reverently spare, to drive into\nexile banished women and fatherless children.  Such laws they bring\nto you, most excellent and most chaste Emperor, to which no barbarity,\nhowever monstrous and cruel, could lend its ear.  But because the\nstain of no disgrace or cruelty falls upon your character, we hope\nthat you will deal with us mildly in this matter, especially when you\nhave learned that we have the weightiest reasons for our belief\nderived from the Word of God to which the adversaries oppose the most\ntrifling and vain opinions.\n\nAnd nevertheless they do not seriously defend celibacy.  For they are\nnot ignorant how few there are who practise chastity, but [they stick\nto that comforting saying which is found in their treatise, _Si non\ncaste, tamen caue_ (If not chastely, at least cautiously) and] they\ndevise a sham of religion for their dominion, which they think that\ncelibacy profits, in order that we may understand Peter to have been\nright in admonishing, 2 Ep. 2, 1, that there will be false teachers\nwho will deceive men with feigned words.  For the adversaries say,\nwrite, or do nothing truly [their words are merely an argument _ad\nhominem_], frankly, and candidly in this entire case, but they\nactually contend only concerning the dominion which they falsely\nthink to be imperiled, and which they endeavor to fortify with a\nwicked pretense of godliness [they support their case with nothing\nbut impious, hypocritical lies; accordingly, it will endure about as\nwell as butter exposed to the sun].\n\nWe cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversaries\ndefend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at\nvariance with the very canons of the Councils.  And that it is\nsuperstitious and dangerous is evident.  For it produces infinite\nscandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in the\nreal towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences].\nOur other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in this\nthe subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires no\ndiscussion.  It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fears\nGod.  And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet the\nadversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing our\narguments.\n\nFirst.  Gen. 1, 28 teaches that men were created to be fruitful, and\nthat one sex in a proper way should desire the other.  For we are\nspeaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite\nwhich was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have\nexisted in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they\ncall physical love.  And this love of one sex for the other is truly\na divine ordinance.  But since this ordinance of God cannot be\nremoved without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the\nright to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows.\n\nThe adversaries cavil at these arguments; they say that in the\nbeginning the commandment was given to replenish the earth but that\nnow since the earth has been replenished, marriage is not commanded.\nSee how wisely they judge!  The nature of men is so formed by the\nword of God that it is fruitful not only in the beginning of the\ncreation, but as long as this nature of our bodies will exist just as\nthe earth becomes fruitful by the word Gen. 1, 11: Let the earth\nbring forth grass, yielding seed.  Because of this ordinance the\nearth not only commenced in the beginning to bring forth plants, but\nthe fields are clothed every year as long as this natural order will\nexist.  Therefore, just as by human laws the nature of the earth\ncannot be changed, so, without a special work of God the nature of a\nhuman being can be changed neither by vows nor by human law [that a\nwoman should not desire a man, nor a man a woman].\n\nSecondly.  And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a\nnatural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly\nthat the union of male and female belongs to natural right.  But\nsince natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must\nalways remain.  For where nature does not change, that ordinance also\nwith which God has endowed nature does not change, and cannot be\nremoved by human laws.  Therefore it is ridiculous for the\nadversaries to prate that marriage was commanded in the beginning,\nbut is not now.  This is the same as if they would say: Formerly,\nwhen men were born, they brought with them sex; now they do not.\nFormerly, when they were born, they brought with them natural right,\nnow they do not.  No craftsman (Faber) could produce anything more\ncrafty than these absurdities, which were devised to elude a right of\nnature.  Therefore let this remain in the case which both Scripture\nteaches and the jurist says wisely, namely, that the union of male\nand female belongs to natural right.  Moreover, a natural right is\ntruly a divine right, because it is an ordinance divinely impressed\nupon nature.  But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an\nextraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contract\nmarriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is an\nordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right; otherwise,\nwhy would both sexes have been created?  And we are speaking, as it\nhas been said above, not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that\ndesire which they call physical love [which would have existed\nbetween man and woman even though their nature had remained pure],\nwhich concupiscence has not removed from nature, but inflames, so\nthat now it has greater need of a remedy, and marriage is necessary\nnot only for the sake of procreation, but also as a remedy [to guard\nagainst sins].  These things are clear, and so well established that\nthey can in no way be overthrown.\n\nThirdly.  Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 2: To avoid fornication, let every man\nhave his own wife.  This now is an express command pertaining to all\nwho are not fit for celibacy.  The adversaries ask that a commandment\nbe shown them which commands priests to marry.  As though priests are\nnot men!  We judge indeed that the things which we maintain\nconcerning human nature in general pertain also to priests.  Does not\nPaul here command those who have not the gift of continence to marry?\nFor he interprets himself a little after when he says, v. 9: It is\nbetter to marry than to burn.  And Christ has clearly said Matt. 19,\n11: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.\nBecause now, since sin [since the fall of Adam], these two things\nconcur, namely, natural appetite and concupiscence, which inflames\nthe natural appetite, so that now there is more need of marriage than\nin nature in its integrity, Paul accordingly speaks of marriage as a\nremedy, and on account of these flames commands to marry.  Neither\ncan any human authority, any law, any vows remove this declaration:\nIt is better to marry than to burn, because they do not remove the\nnature or concupiscence.  Therefore all who burn, retain the right to\nmarry.  By this commandment of Paul: To avoid fornication, let every\nman have his own wife, all are held bound who do not truly keep\nthemselves continent; the decision concerning which pertains to the\nconscience of each one.\n\nFor as they here give the command to seek continence of God, and to\nweaken the body by labors and hunger, why do they not proclaim these\nmagnificent commandments to themselves?  But, as we have said above,\nthe adversaries are only playing; they are doing nothing seriously.\nIf continence were possible to all, it would not require a peculiar\ngift.  But Christ shows that it has need of a peculiar gift;\ntherefore it does not belong to all.  God wishes the rest to use the\ncommon law of nature which He has instituted.  For God does not wish\nHis ordinances, His creations to be despised.  He wishes men to be\nchaste in this way, that they use the remedy divinely presented, just\nas He wishes to nourish our life in this way, that we use food and\ndrink.  Gerson also testifies that there have been many good men who\nendeavored to subdue the body, and yet made little progress.\nAccordingly, Ambrose is right in saying: Virginity is only a thing\nthat can be recommended, but not commanded; it is a matter of vow\nrather than of precept.  If any one here would raise the objection\nthat Christ praises those which have made themselves eunuchs for the\nkingdom of heaven's sake, Matt. 19, 12, let him also consider this,\nthat He is praising such as have the gift of continence, for on this\naccount He adds: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.\nFor an impure continence [such as there is in monasteries and\ncloisters] does not please Christ.  We also praise true continence.\nBut now we are disputing concerning the law and concerning those who\ndo not have the gift of continence.  The matter ought to be left free\nand snares ought not to be cast upon the weak through this law.\n\nFourthly.  The pontifical law differs also from the canons of the\nCouncils.  For the ancient canons do not prohibit marriage, neither\ndo they dissolve marriages that have been contracted, even if they\nremove from the administration of their office those who have\ncontracted them in the ministry.  At those times this dismissal was\nan act of kindness [rather than a punishment].  But the new canons,\nwhich have not been framed in the Synods, but have been made\naccording to the private judgment of the Popes, both prohibit the\ncontraction of marriages, and dissolve them when contracted; and this\nis to be done openly, contrary to the command of Christ, Matt. 19, 6:\nWhat God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.  In the\n_Confutation_ the adversaries exclaim that celibacy has been\ncommanded by the Councils.  We do not find fault with the decrees of\nthe Councils; for under a certain condition these allow marriage, but\nwe find fault with the laws which, since the ancient Synods, the\nPopes of Rome have framed contrary to the authority of the Synods.\nThe Popes despise the authority of the Synods, just as much as they\nwish it to appear holy to others [under peril of God's wrath and\neternal damnation].  Therefore this law concerning perpetual celibacy\nis peculiar to this new pontifical despotism.  Nor is it without a\nreason.  For Daniel, 11, 37, ascribes to the kingdom of Antichrist\nthis mark, namely, the contempt of women.\n\nFifthly.  Although the adversaries do not defend the law because of\nsuperstition, [not because of its sanctity, as from ignorance], since\nthey see that it is not generally observed, nevertheless they diffuse\nsuperstitious opinions, while they give a pretext of religion.  They\nproclaim that they require celibacy because it is purity.  As though\nmarriage were impurity and a sin, or as though celibacy merited\njustification more than does marriage!  And to this end they cite the\nceremonies of the Mosaic Law, because, since under the Law, the\npriests, at the time of ministering, were separated from their wives,\nthe priest in the New Testament, inasmuch as he ought always to pray,\nought always to practise continence.  This silly comparison is\npresented as a proof which should compel priests to perpetual\ncelibacy, although, indeed, in this very comparison marriage is\nallowed, only in the time of ministering its use is interdicted.  And\nit is one thing to pray; another, to minister.  The saints prayed\neven when they did not exercise the public ministry; nor did conjugal\nintercourse hinder them from praying.\n\nBut we shall reply in order to these figments.  In the first place,\nit is necessary for the adversaries to acknowledge this, namely, that\nin believers marriage is pure because it has been sanctified by the\nWord of God, i.e., it is a matter that is permitted and approved by\nthe Word of God, as Scripture abundantly testifies.  For Christ calls\nmarriage a divine union, when He says, Matt. 19, 6: What God hath\njoined together [let not man put asunder.  Here Christ says that\nmarried people are joined together by God.  Accordingly, it is a pure,\nholy, noble, praiseworthy work of God].  And Paul says of marriage,\nof meats and similar things, I Tim. 4, 6: It is sanctified by the\nWord of God and prayer, i.e., by the Word, by which consciences\nbecome certain that God approves; and by prayer, i.e., by faith,\nwhich uses it with thanksgiving as a gift of God.  Likewise, 1 Cor. 7,\n14: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, etc., i.e..\nthe use of marriage is permitted and holy on account of faith in\nChrist, just as it is permitted to use meat, etc. Likewise, 1 Tim. 2,\n16: She shall, be saved in childbearing [if they continue in faith],\netc. If the adversaries could produce such a passage concerning\ncelibacy, then indeed they would celebrate a wonderful triumph.  Paul\nsays that woman is saved by child-bearing.  What more honorable could\nbe said against the hypocrisy of celibacy than that woman is saved by\nthe conjugal works themselves, by conjugal intercourse, by bearing\nchildren and the other duties?  But what does St. Paul mean?  Let the\nreader observe that faith is added, and that domestic duties without\nfaith are not praised.  If they continue, he says, in faith.  For he\nspeaks of the whole class of mothers.  Therefore he requires\nespecially faith [that they should have God's Word and be believing],\nby which woman receives the remission of sins and justification.\nThen he adds a particular work of the calling, just as in every man a\ngood work of a particular calling ought to follow faith.  This work\npleases God on account of faith.  Thus the duties of the woman please\nGod on account of faith, and the believing woman is saved who in such\nduties devoutly serves her calling.\n\nThese testimonies teach that marriage is a lawful [a holy and\nChristian] thing.  If therefore purity signifies that which is\nallowed and approved before God, marriages are pure, because they\nhave been approved by the Word of God.  And Paul says of lawful\nthings, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure all things are pure, i.e., to\nthose who believe in Christ and are righteous by faith.  Therefore,\nas virginity is impure in the godless, so in the godly marriage is\npure on account of the Word of God and faith.\n\nAgain, if purity is properly opposed to concupiscence, it signifies\npurity of heart, i.e., mortified concupiscence, because the Law does\nnot prohibit marriage, but concupiscence, adultery, fornication.\nTherefore celibacy is not purity.  For there may be greater purity of\nheart in a married man, as in Abraham or Jacob, than in most of those\nwho are even truly continent [who even, according to bodily purity,\nreally maintain their chastity].\n\nLastly, if they understand that celibacy is purity in the sense that\nit merits justification more than does marriage, we most emphatically\ncontradict it.  For we are justified neither on account of virginity\nnor on account of marriage, but freely for Christ's sake, when we\nbelieve that for His sake God is propitious to us.  Here perhaps they\nwill exclaim that, according to the manner of Jovinian, marriage is\nmade equal to virginity.  But, on account of such clamors we shall\nnot reject the truth concerning the righteousness of faith, which we\nhave explained above.  Nevertheless we do not make virginity and\nmarriage equal.  For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy\nsurpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpasses\nagriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a\nmore excellent gift than marriage.  And nevertheless, just as an\norator is not more righteous before God because of his eloquence than\nan architect because of his skill in architecture, so a virgin does\nnot merit justification by virginity more than a married person\nmerits it by conjugal duties but each one ought faithfully to serve\nin his own gift, and to believe that for Christ's sake he receives\nthe remission of sins and by faith is accounted righteous before God.\n\nNeither does Christ or Paul praise virginity because it justifies,\nbut because it is freer and less distracted with domestic occupations,\nin praying, teaching, [writing,] serving.  For this reason Paul says,\n1 Cor. 7, 32: He that is unmarried careth for the things which\nbelong to the Lord.  Virginity, therefore, is praised on account of\nmeditation and study.  Thus Christ does not simply praise those who\nmake themselves eunuchs, but adds, for the kingdom of heaven's sake,\ni.e., that they may have leisure to learn or teach the Gospel; for He\ndoes not say that virginity merits the remission of sins or salvation.\n\nTo the examples of the Levitical priests we have replied that they do\nnot establish the duty of imposing perpetual celibacy upon the\npriests.  Furthermore, the Levitical impurities are not to be\ntransferred to us.  [The law of Moses, with the ceremonial statutes\nconcerning what is clean or unclean, do not at all concern us\nChristians.] Then intercourse contrary to the Law was an impurity.\nNow it is not impurity, because Paul says, Titus 1, 15: Unto the pure\nall things are pure.  For the Gospel frees us from these Levitical\nimpurities [from all the ceremonies of Moses, and not alone from the\nlaws concerning uncleanness].  And if any one defends the law of\ncelibacy with the design to burden consciences by these Levitical\nobservances, we must strive against this, just as the apostles in\nActs 15, 10 sqq. strove against those who required circumcision and\nendeavored to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians.\n\nYet, in the mean while, good men will know how to control the use of\nmarriage, especially when they are occupied with public offices,\nwhich often, indeed, give good men so much labor as to expel all\ndomestic thoughts from their minds.  [For to be burdened with great\naffairs and transactions, which concern commonwealths and nations,\ngovernments and churches, is a good remedy to keep the old Adam from\nlustfulness.] Good men know also this, that Paul, 1 Thess. 4, 4,\ncommands that every one possess his vessel in sanctification [and\nhonor, not in the lust of concupiscence].  They know likewise that\nthey must sometimes retire, in order that there may be leisure for\nprayer, but Paul does not wish this to be perpetual, 1 Cor. 7, 5. Now\nsuch continence is easy to those who are good and occupied.  But this\ngreat crowd of unemployed priests which is in the fraternities cannot\nafford, in this voluptuousness, even this Levitical continence, as\nthe facts show.  [On the other hand, what sort of chastity can there\nbe among so many thousands of monks and priests who live without\nworry in all manner of delights, being idle and full, and, moreover,\nhave not the Word of God, do not learn it, and have no regard for it.\nSuch conditions bring on all manner of inchastity.  Such people can\nobserve neither Levitical nor perpetual chastity.] And the lines are\nwell known: The boy accustomed to pursue a slothful life hates those\nwho are busy.\n\nMany heretics understanding the Law of Moses incorrectly have treated\nmarriage with contempt, for whom, nevertheless, celibacy has gained\nextraordinary admiration.  And Epiphanius complains that, by this\ncommendation especially, the Encratites captured the minds of the\nunwary.  They abstained from wine even in the Lord's Supper; they\nabstained from the flesh of all animals, in which they surpassed the\nDominican brethren who live upon fish.  They abstained also from\nmarriage; and just this gained the chief admiration.  These works,\nthese services, they thought, merited grace more than the use of wine\nand flesh, and than marriage, which seemed to be a profane and\nunclean matter, and which scarcely could please God, even though it\nwere not altogether condemned.\n\nPaul to the Colossians, 2, 18, greatly disapproves these angelic\nforms of worship.  For when men believe that they are pure and\nrighteous on account of such hypocrisy, they suppress the knowledge\nof Christ, and suppress also the knowledge of God's gifts and\ncommandments.  For God wishes us to use His gifts in a godly way.\nAnd we might mention examples where certain godly consciences were\ngreatly disturbed on account of the lawful use of marriage.  This\nevil was derived from the opinions of monks superstitiously praising\ncelibacy [and proclaiming the married estate as a life that would be\na great obstacle to salvation, and full of sins].  Nevertheless we do\nnot find fault with temperance or continence, but we have said above\nthat exercises and mortifications of the body are necessary.  We\nindeed deny that confidence should be placed in certain observances,\nas though they made righteous.  And Epiphanies has elegantly said\nthat these observances ought to be praised dia tehn egkrateian kai\ndia tehn politeian, i.e., for restraining the body or on account of\npublic morals; just as certain rites were instituted for instructing\nthe ignorant, and not as services that justify.\n\nBut it is not through superstition that our adversaries require\ncelibacy, for they know that chastity is not ordinarily rendered\n[that at Rome, also in all their monasteries, there is nothing but\nundisguised, unconcealed inchastity.  Nor do they seriously intend to\nlead chaste lives, but knowingly practise hypocrisy before the\npeople].  But they feign superstitious opinions, so as to delude the\nignorant.  They are therefore more worthy of hatred than the\nEncratites, who seem to have erred by show of religion; these\nSardanapali [Epicureans] designedly misuse the pretext of religion.\n\nSixthly.  Although we have so many reasons for disapproving the law\nof perpetual celibacy, yet, besides these, dangers to souls and\npublic scandals also are added, which even, though the law were not\nunjust, ought to deter good men from approving such a burden as has\ndestroyed innumerable souls.\n\nFor a long time all good men [their own bishops and canons] have\ncomplained of this burden, either on their own account, or on account\nof others whom they saw to be in danger.  But no Popes give ear to\nthese complaints.  Neither is it doubtful how greatly injurious to\npublic morals this law is, and what vices and shameful lusts it has\nproduced.  The Roman satires are extant.  In these Rome still\nrecognizes and reads its own morals.\n\nThus God avenges the contempt of His own gift and ordinance in those\nwho prohibit marriage.  But since the custom in regard to other laws\nwas that they should be changed if manifest utility would advise it,\nwhy is the same not done with respect to this law, in which so many\nweighty reasons concur, especially in these last times, why a change\nought to be made?  Nature is growing old and is gradually becoming\nweaker, and vices are increasing; wherefore the remedies divinely\ngiven should have been employed.  We see what vice it was which God\ndenounced before the Flood, what He denounced before the burning of\nthe five cities.  Similar vices have preceded the destruction of many\nother cities, as of Sybaris and Rome.  And in these there has been\npresented an image of the times which will be next to the end of\nthings.  Accordingly, at this time, marriage ought to have been\nespecially defended by the most severe laws and warning examples, and\nmen ought to have been invited to marriage.  This duty pertains to\nthe magistrates, who ought to maintain public discipline.  [God has\nnow so blinded the world that adultery and fornication are permitted\nalmost without punishment, on the contrary, punishment is inflicted\non account of marriage.  Is not this terrible to hear?] Meanwhile the\nteachers of the Gospel should do both, they should exhort incontinent\nmen to marriage, and should exhort others not to despise the gift of\ncontinence.\n\nThe Popes daily dispense and daily change other laws which are most\nexcellent, yet, in regard to this one law of celibacy, they are as\niron and inexorable, although, indeed, it is manifest that this is\nsimply of human right.  And they are now making this law more\ngrievous in many ways.  The canon bids them suspend priests, these\nrather unfriendly interpreters suspend them not from office, but from\ntrees.  They cruelly kill many men for nothing but marriage.  [It is\nto be feared therefore, that the blood of Abel will cry to heaven so\nloudly as not to be endured, and that we shall have to tremble like\nCain.] And these very parricides show that this law is a doctrine of\ndemons.  For since the devil is a murderer, he defends his law by\nthese parricides.\n\nWe know that there is some offense in regard to schism, because we\nseem to have separated from those who are thought to be regular\nbishops.  But our consciences are very secure, since we know that,\nthough we most earnestly desire to establish harmony, we cannot\nplease the adversaries unless we cast away manifest truth, and then\nagree with these very men in being willing to defend this unjust law,\nto dissolve marriages that have been contracted, to put to death\npriests if they do not obey, to drive poor women and fatherless\nchildren into exile.  But since it is well established that these\nconditions are displeasing to God, we can in no way grieve that we\nhave no alliance with the multitude of murderers among the\nadversaries.\n\nWe have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a good\nconscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law\nconcerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and\nnatural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is\nsuperstitious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole\naffair is insincere.  For the law is enacted not for the sake of\nreligion [not for holiness' sake, or because they do not know better;\nthey know very well that everybody is well acquainted with the\ncondition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but for\nthe sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext of\nreligion.  Neither can anything be produced by sane men against these\nmost firmly established reasons.  The Gospel allows marriage to those\nto whom it is necessary.  Nevertheless, it does not compel those to\nmarry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent.  We\nhold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do\nwe wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve\nmarriages that have been contracted.\n\nWe have also indicated incidentally, while we have recounted our\narguments, how the adversaries cavil at several of these; and we have\nexplained away these false accusations.  Now we shall relate as\nbriefly as possible with what important reasons they defend the law.\nFirst, they say that it has been revealed by God.  You see the\nextreme impudence of these sorry fellows.  They dare to affirm that\nthe law of perpetual celibacy has been divinely revealed, although it\nis contrary to manifest testimonies of Scripture, which command that\nto avoid fornication each one should have his own wife, 1 Cor. 7, 2;\nwhich likewise forbid to dissolve marriages that have been contracted;\ncf.  Matt. 6, 32; 19, 6; 1 Cor. 7, 27. [What can the knaves say in\nreply?  And how dare they wantonly and shamelessly misapply the great,\nmost holy name of the divine Majesty?] Paul reminds us what an\nauthor such a law was to have when he calls it a doctrine of demons,\n1 Tim. 4, 1. And the fruits show their author, namely, so many\nmonstrous lusts and so many murders which are now committed under the\npretext of that law [as can be seen at Rome].\n\nThe second argument of the adversaries is that the priests ought to\nbe pure, according to Is. 52, 11: Be ye clean that bear the vessels\nof the Lord.  And they cite many things to this effect.  This reason\nwhich they display we have above removed as especially specious.  For\nwe have said that virginity without faith is not purity before God,\nand marriage, on account of faith, is pure, according to Titus 1, 16:\nUnto the pure all things are pure.  We have said also this, that\noutward purity and the ceremonies of the Law are not to be\ntransferred hither, because the Gospel requires purity of heart, and\ndoes not require the ceremonies of the Law.  And it may occur that\nthe heart of a husband, as of Abraham or Jacob, who were polygamists,\nis purer and burns less with lusts than that of many virgins who are\neven truly continent.  But what Isaiah says: Be ye clean that bear\nthe vessels of the Lord, ought to be understood as referring to\ncleanness of heart and to the entire repentance.  Besides, the saints\nwill know in the exercise of marriage how far it is profitable to\nrestrain its use, and as Paul says, 1 Thess. 4, 4, to possess his\nvessel in sanctification.  Lastly, since marriage is pure, it is\nrightly said to those who are not continent in celibacy that they\nshould marry wives in order to be pure.  Thus the same law: Be ye\nclean that bear the vessels of the Lord, commands that impure\ncelibates become pure husbands [impure unmarried priests become pure\nmarried priests].\n\nThe third argument is horrible, namely, that the marriage of priests\nis the heresy of Jovinian.  Fine-sounding words!  [Pity on our poor\nsouls, dear sirs; proceed gently!] This is a new crime, that marriage\n[which God instituted in Paradise] is a heresy!  [In that case all\nthe world would be children of heretics.] In the time of Jovinian the\nworld did not as yet know the law concerning perpetual celibacy.\n[This our adversaries know very well.] Therefore it is an impudent\nfalsehood that the marriage of priests is the heresy of Jovinian, or\nthat such marriage was then condemned by the Church.  In such\npassages we can see what design the adversaries had in writing the\n_Confutation_.  They judged that the ignorant would be thus most\neasily excited, if they would frequently hear the reproach of heresy,\nif they pretend that our cause had been dispatched and condemned by\nmany previous decisions of the Church.  Thus they frequently cite\nfalsely the judgment of the Church.  Because they are not ignorant of\nthis, they were unwilling to exhibit to us a copy of their Apology,\nlest this falsehood and these reproaches might be exposed.  Our\nopinion, however, as regards the case of Jovinian, concerning the\ncomparison of virginity and marriage, we have expressed above.  For\nwe do not make marriage and virginity equal, although neither\nvirginity nor marriage merits justification.\n\nBy such false arguments they defend a law that is godless and\ndestructive to good morals.  By such reasons they set the minds of\nprinces firmly against God's judgment [the princes and bishops who\nbelieve this teaching will see whether their reasons will endure the\ntest when the hour of death arrives], in which God will call them to\naccount as to why they have dissolved marriages, and why they have\ntortured [flogged and impaled] and killed priests [regardless of the\ncries, wails, and tears of so many widows and orphans].  For do not\ndoubt but that, as the blood of dead Abel cried out, Gen. 4, 10, so\nthe blood of many good men against whom they have unjustly raged,\nwill also cry out.  And God will avenge this cruelty; there you will\ndiscover how empty are these reasons of the adversaries, and you will\nperceive that in God's judgment no calumnies against God's Word\nremain standing, as Isaiah says, 40, 6: All flesh is grass, and all\nthe goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field [that their\narguments are straw and hay, and God a consuming fire, before whom\nnothing but God's Word can abide, 1 Pet. 1, 24].\n\nWhatever may happen, our princes will be able to console themselves\nwith the consciousness of right counsels, because even though the\npriests would have done wrong in contracting marriages, yet this\ndisruption of marriages, these proscriptions, and this cruelty are\nmanifestly contrary to the will and Word of God.  Neither does\nnovelty or dissent delight our princes, but especially in a matter\nthat is not doubtful more regard had to be paid to the Word of God\nthan to all other things.\n\n\n\n\nPart 29\n\n\nArticle XXIV (XII): _Of the Mass._\n\nAt the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do\nnot abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it.  For\namong us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other\nfestivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use\nit, after they have been examined and absolved.  And the usual public\nceremonies are observed, the series of lessons of prayers, vestments,\nand other like things.\n\nThe adversaries have a long declamation concerning the use of the\nLatin language in the Mass, in which they absurdly trifle as to how\nit profits [what a great merit is achieved by] an unlearned hearer to\nhear in the faith of the Church a Mass which he does not understand.\nThey evidently imagine that the mere work of hearing is a service,\nthat it profits without being understood.  We are unwilling to\nmalignantly pursue these things, but we leave them to the judgment of\nthe reader.  We mention them only for the purpose of stating in\npassing, that also among us the Latin lessons and prayers are\nretained.\n\nSince ceremonies, however, ought to be observed both to teach men\nScripture, and that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith\nand fear [of God, and obtain comfort] and thus also may pray (for\nthese are the designs of ceremonies ), we retain the Latin language\non account of those who are learning and understand Latin, and we\nmingle with it German hymns, in order that the people also may have\nsomething to learn, and by which faith and fear may be called forth.\nThis custom has always existed in the churches.  For although some\nmore frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns,\nnevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their own\ntongue.  [Therefore, this is not such a new departure.] It has,\nhowever, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearing\nlessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not\nbecause they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because they\nare thus performed or are looked upon.  Away with such pharisaic\nopinions!  [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]\n\nThe fact that we hold only Public or Common Mass [at which the people\nalso commune, not Private Mass] is no offense against the Church\ncatholic.  For in the Greek churches even to-day private Masses are\nnot held, but there is only a public Mass, and that on the Lord's Day\nand festivals.  In the monasteries daily Mass is held, but this is\nonly public.  These are the traces of former customs.  For nowhere do\nthe ancient writers before Gregory make mention of private Masses.\nWe now omit noticing the nature of their origin.  It is evident that\nafter the mendicant monks began to prevail, from most false opinions\nand on account of gain they were so increased that all good men for a\nlong time desired some limit to this thing.  Although St. Francis\nwished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that each\nfraternity should be content with a single common Mass daily,\nafterwards this was changed, either by superstition or for the sake\nof gain.  Thus, where it is of advantage, they themselves change the\ninstitutions of the Fathers; and afterwards they cite against us the\nauthority of the Fathers.  Epiphanius writes that in Asia the\nCommunion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were no\ndaily Masses.  And indeed he says that this custom was handed down\nfrom the apostles.  For he speaks thus: Assemblies for Communion were\nappointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath\neve, and the Lord's Day.\n\nMoreover, although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this\ntopic to prove that the Mass is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult of\nwords will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that this\nline of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does not\nprove that the Mass confers grace er opere operato, or that, when\napplied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of\nvenial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment.  This one reply\noverthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this\n_Confutation_, but in all writings which they have published\nconcerning the Mass.\n\nAnd this is the issue [the principal question] of the case of which\nour readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judges\nthat just as boxers contend with one another for their position, so\nthey should strive with their adversary concerning the controverted\npoint, and not permit him to wander beyond the case.  In the same\nmanner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak on the\nsubject presented.  And when the controverted point has been\nthoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments on both\nsides will be very easy.\n\nFor in our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord's\nSupper does not confer _grace ex opere operato_, and that, when\napplied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit for\nthem _ex opere operato_ the remission of sins, of guilt or of\npunishment.  And of this position a clear and firm proof exists in\nthat it is impossible to obtain the remission of our sins on account\nof our own work _ex opere operato_ [even when there is not a good\nthought in the heart], but the terrors of sin and death must be\novercome by faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of\nChrist, and believe that for Christ's sake we are forgiven, and that\nthe merits and righteousness of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1:\nBeing justified by faith, we have peace.  These things are so sure\nand so firm that they can stand against all the gates of hell.\n\nIf we are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has already\nbeen stated.  For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and heathen\nopinion concerning the _opus operatum_.  And nevertheless this\nopinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely the\nnumber of masses.  For masses are purchased to appease God's wrath,\nand by this work they wish to obtain the remission of guilt and of\npunishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary in every kind\nof life [health riches, prosperity, and success in business].  They\nwish even to liberate the dead.  Monks and sophists have taught this\npharisaic opinion in the Church.\n\nBut although our case has already been stated, yet, because the\nadversaries foolishly pervert many passages of Scripture to the\ndefense of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic.  In\nthe _Confutation_ they have said many things concerning \"sacrifice,\"\nalthough in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on account\nof its ambiguity.  We have set forth what those persons whose abuses\nwe condemn now understand as a sacrifice.  Now, in order to explain\nthe passages of Scripture that have been wickedly perverted, it is\nnecessary in the beginning to set forth what a sacrifice is.  Already\nfor an entire period of ten years the adversaries have published\nalmost infinite volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of them\nthus far has given a definition of sacrifice.  They only seize upon\nthe name \"sacrifices\" either from the Scriptures or the Fathers [and\nwhere they find it in the Concordances of the Bible apply it here,\nwhether it fits or not].  Afterward they append their own dreams, as\nthough indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases them.\n\n\n\n\nPart 30\n\n\n_What a Sacrifice Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice._\n\n[Now, lest we plunge blindly into this business, we must indicate, in\nthe first place, a distinction as to what is, and what is not, a\nsacrifice.  To know this is expedient and good for all Christians.]\nSocrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, says that he is especially fond\nof divisions, because without these nothing can either be explained\nor understood in speaking, and if he discovers any one skilful in\nmaking divisions, he says that he attends and follows his footsteps\nas those of a god.  And he instructs the one dividing to separate the\nmembers in their very joints, lest, like an unskilful cook, he break\nto pieces some member.  But the adversaries wonderfully despise these\nprecepts, and, according to Plato, are truly _kakoi mageiroi_ (poor\nbutchers), since they break the members of \"sacrifice,\" as can be\nunderstood when we have enumerated the species of sacrifice.\nTheologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament\nand a sacrifice.  Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these\nbe either a ceremony or a sacred work.  A Sacrament is a ceremony or\nwork in which God presents to us that which the promise annexed to\nthe ceremony offers; as Baptism is a work, not which we offer to God\nbut in which God baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of God;\nand God here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc.,\naccording to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is\nbaptized shall be saved.  A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony\nor work which we render God in order to afford Him honor.\n\nMoreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are\nno more.  One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes\nsatisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles God,\nor appeases God's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for\nothers.  The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does\nnot merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by\nthose who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or\nreturn gratitude for the remission of sins that has been received, or\nfor other benefits received.\n\nThese two species of sacrifice we ought especially to have in view\nand placed before the eyes in this controversy, as well as in many\nother discussions; and especial care must be taken lest they be\nconfounded.  But if the limits of this book would suffer it, we would\nadd the reasons for this division.  For it has many testimonies in\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere.  And all Levitical\nsacrifices can be referred to these members as to their own homes\n[genera].  For in the Law certain sacrifices were named propitiatory\non account of their signification or similitude; not because they\nmerited the remission of sins before God, but because they merited\nthe remission of sins according to the righteousness of the Law, in\norder that those for whom they were made might not be excluded from\nthat commonwealth [from the people of Israel].  Therefore they were\ncalled sin-offerings and burnt offerings for a trespass.  Whereas the\neucharistic sacrifices were the oblation, the drink-offering,\nthank-offerings, first-fruits, tithes.\n\n[Thus there have been in the Law emblems of the true sacrifice.] But\nin fact there has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world,\nnamely, the death of Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches,\nwhich says, 10, 4: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of\ngoats should take away sins.  And a little after, of the [obedience\nand] will of Christ, v. 10: By the which will we are sanctified by\nthe offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.  And Isaiah\ninterprets the Law, in order that we may know that the death of\nChrist is truly a satisfaction for our sins, or expiation, and that\nthe ceremonies of the Law are not, wherefore he says, 53, 10: When\nThou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He will see His seed,\netc. For the word employed here, _'shm_, signifies a victim for\ntransgression; which signified in the Law that a certain Victim was\nto come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile God in order\nthat men might know that God wishes to be reconciled to us, not on\naccount of our own righteousnesses, but on account of the merits of\nanother, namely, of Christ.  Paul interprets the same word _'shm_ as\nsin, Rom. 8, 3: For sin (God) condemned sin, i.e., He punished sin\nfor sin, i.e., by a Victim for sin.  The significance of the word can\nbe the more easily understood from the customs of the heathen, which,\nwe see, have been received from the misunderstood expressions of the\nFathers.  The Latins called a victim that which in great calamities,\nwhere God seemed to be especially enraged, was offered to appease\nGod's wrath, a _piaculum_; and they sometimes sacrificed human\nvictims, perhaps because they had heard that a human victim would\nappease God for the entire human race.  The Greeks sometimes called\nthem _katharmata_ and sometimes _peripsehmata_.  Isaiah and Paul,\ntherefore, mean that Christ became a victim i.e., an expiation, that\nby His merits, and not by our own, God might be reconciled.\nTherefore let this remain established in the case namely, that the\ndeath of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.  For the\nLevitical propitiatory sacrifices were so called only to signify a\nfuture expiation.  On account of a certain resemblance, therefore,\nthey were satisfactions redeeming the righteousness of the Law, lest\nthose persons who sinned should be excluded from the commonwealth.\nBut after the revelation of the Gospel [and after the true sacrifice\nhas been accomplished] they had to cease, and because they had to\ncease in the revelation of the Gospel, they were not truly\npropitiations, since the Gospel was promised for this very reason,\nnamely, to set forth a propitiation.\n\nNow the rest are eucharistic sacrifices which are called sacrifices\nof praise, Lev. 3, 1 f.; 7, 11 f.; Ps. 56, 12 f., namely, the\npreaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the\nafflictions of saints yea, all good works of saints.  These\nsacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable\non behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the\nremission of sins or reconciliation.  For they are made by those who\nhave been reconciled.  And such are the sacrifices of the New\nTestament, as Peter teaches, 1. Ep. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, to\noffer up spiritual sacrifices.  Spiritual sacrifices, however, are\ncontrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works\noffered _ex opere operato_, because spiritual refers to the movements\nof the Holy Ghost in us.  Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1:\nPresent your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is\nyour reasonable service.  Reasonable service signifies, however, a\nservice in which God is known and apprehended by the mind, as happens\nin the movements of fear and trust towards God.  Therefore it is\nopposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain,\nbut also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered _ex\nopere operato_.  The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13, 15, teaches the same\nthing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God\ncontinually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of\nour lips, giving thanks to His name.  He bids us offer praises, i.e.,\nprayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like.  These avail not _ex\nopere operato_, but on account of faith.  This is taught by the\nclause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.\n\nIn short, the worship of the New Testament is spiritual, i.e., it is\nthe righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruits of faith.  It\naccordingly abolishes the Levitical services.  [In the New Testament\nno offering avails _ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis_, i.e.\non account of the work, without a good thought in the heart.] And\nChrist says, John 4, 23. 24: True worshipers shall worship the Father\nin spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.\nGod is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit\nand in truth [that is from the heart, with heartfelt fear and cordial\nfaith].  This passage clearly condemns [as absolutely devilish,\npharisaical, and antichristian] opinions concerning sacrifices which\nthey imagine, avail _ex opere operato_, and teaches that men ought to\nworship in spirit i.e., with the dispositions of the heart and by\nfaith.  [The Jews also did not understand their ceremonies aright,\nand imagined that they were righteous before God when they had\nwrought works _ex opere operato_.  Against this the prophets contend\nwith the greatest earnestness.] Accordingly, the prophets also in the\nOld Testament condemn the opinion of the people concerning the opus\noperatum and teach the righteousness and sacrifices of the Spirit.\nJer. 7, 22. 23: For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them,\nin the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning\nburnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them,\nsaying, Obey My voice, and I will be your God, etc. How do we suppose\nthat the Jews received this arraignment, which seems to conflict\nopenly with Moses?  For it was evident that God had given the fathers\ncommands concerning burnt offerings and victims.  But Jeremiah\ncondemns the opinion concerning sacrifices which God had not\ndelivered namely, that these services should please Him _ex opere\noperato_.  But he adds concerning faith that God had commanded this:\nHear Me, i.e., believe Me that I am your God; that I wish to become\nthus known when I pity and aid; neither have I need of your victims;\nbelieve that I wish to be God the Justifier and Savior, not on\naccount of works, but on account of My word and promise, truly and\nfrom the heart seek and expect aid from Me.\n\nPs. 50, 13. 15, which rejects the victims and requires prayer, also\ncondemns the opinion concerning the opus operatum: Will I eat the\nflesh of bulls? etc. (Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will\ndeliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.  The Psalmist testifies that\nthis is true service, that this is true honor, if we call upon Him\nfrom the heart.\n\nLikewise Ps. 40, 6: Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire;\nmine ears hast Thou opened, i.e., Thou hast offered to me Thy Word\nthat I might hear it, and Thou dost require that I believe Thy Word\nand The promises, that Thou truly desirest to pity, to bring aid, etc.\nLikewise Ps. 51, 16. 17: Thou delightest not in burnt offering.  The\nsacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart,\nO God, Thou wilt not despise.  Likewise Ps. 4, 5: Offer the\nsacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust [hope, V.] in the\nLord.  He bids us hope, and says that this is a righteous sacrifice,\nsignifying that other sacrifices are not true and righteous\nsacrifices.  And Ps. 116, 17: I will offer to Thee the sacrifices of\nthanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord They call\ninvocation a sacrifice of thanksgiving.\n\nBut Scripture is full of such testimonies as teach that sacrifices\n_ex opere operato_ do not reconcile God.  Accordingly the New\nTestament, since Levitical services have been abrogated, teaches that\nnew and pure sacrifices will be made, namely, faith, prayer,\nthanksgiving, confession, and the preaching of the Gospel,\nafflictions on account of the Gospel, and the like.\n\nAnd of these sacrifices Malachi speaks, 1, 11: From the rising of the\nsun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among\nthe Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My\nname and a pure offering.  The adversaries perversely apply this\npassage to the Mass, and quote the authority of the Fathers.  A reply,\nhowever, is easy, for even if it spoke most particularly of the Mass,\nit would not follow that the Mass justifies _ex opere operato_, or\nthat when applied to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc.\nThe prophet says nothing of those things which the monks and sophists\nimpudently fabricate.  Besides, the very words of the prophet express\nhis meaning.  For they first say this, namely, that the name of the\nLord will be great.  This is accomplished by the preaching of the\nGospel.  For through this the name of Christ is made known, and the\nmercy of the Father, promised in Christ is recognized.  The preaching\nof the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel.  They\ncall upon God, they give thanks to God, they bear afflictions for\ntheir confession, they produce good works for the glory of Christ.\nThus the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles.\nTherefore incense and a pure offering signify not a ceremony _ex\nopere operato_ [not the ceremony of the Mass alone], but all those\nsacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great, namely,\nfaith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, etc. And\nif any one would have this term embrace the ceremony [of the Mass],\nwe readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremony\nalone, nor teaches that the ceremony profits _ex opere operato_.  For\njust as among the sacrifices of praise, i.e., among the praises of\nGod, we include the preaching of the Word so the reception itself of\nthe Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving, but it does not\njustify _ex opere operato_; neither is it to be applied to others so\nas to merit for them the remission of sins.  But after a while we\nshall explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice.  Yet, as Malachi\nspeaks of all the services of the New Testament, and not only of the\nLord's Supper; likewise, as he does not favor the pharisaic opinion\nof the _opus operatum_, he is not against us, but rather aids us.\nFor he requires services of the heart, through which the name of the\nLord becomes truly great.\n\nAnother passage also is cited from Malachi 3, 3: And He shall purify\nthe sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may\noffer unto the Lord an offering of righteousness.  This passage\nclearly requires the sacrifices of the righteous, and hence does not\nfavor the opinion concerning the _opus operatum_.  But the sacrifices\nof the sons of Levi i.e., of those teaching in the New Testament, are\nthe preaching of the Gospel, and the good fruits of preaching, as\nPaul says, Rom. 15, 16: Ministering the Gospel of God, that the\noffering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by\nthe Holy Ghost, i.e., that the Gentiles might be offerings acceptable\nto God by faith, etc. For in the Law the slaying of victims signified\nboth the death of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, by which\nthis oldness of flesh should be mortified, and the new and eternal\nlife be begun in us.\n\nBut the adversaries everywhere perversely apply the name sacrifice to\nthe ceremony alone.  They omit the preaching of the Gospel, faith,\nprayer, and similar things, although the ceremony has been\nestablished on account of these, and the New Testament ought to have\nsacrifices of the heart, and not ceremonials for sin that are to be\nperformed after the manner of the Levitical priesthood.\n\nThey cite also the daily sacrifice (cf.  Ex. 29, 38 f.; Dan. 8, ll f.,\n12, 11), that, just as in the Law there was a daily sacrifice, so\nthe Mass ought to be a daily sacrifice of the New Testament.  The\nadversaries have managed well if we permit ourselves to be overcome\nby allegories.  It is evident, however, that allegories do not\nproduce firm proofs [that in matters so highly important before God\nwe must have a sure and clear word of God, and not introduce by force\nobscure and foreign passages, such uncertain explanations do not\nstand the test of God's judgment].  Although we indeed readily suffer\nthe Mass to be understood as a daily sacrifice, provided that the\nentire Mass be understood, i.e., the ceremony with the preaching of\nthe Gospel, faith, invocation, and thanksgiving.  For these joined\ntogether are a daily sacrifice of the New Testament, because the\nceremony [of the Mass, or the Lord's Supper] was instituted on\naccount of these things, neither is it to be separated from these.\nPaul says accordingly, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As often as ye eat this bread\nand drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.  But it\nin no way follows from this Levitical type that a ceremony justifying\n_ex opere operato_ is necessary, or ought to be applied on behalf of\nothers, that it may merit for them the remission of sins.\n\nAnd the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the\npreaching of the Gospel.  In Num. 28, 4 f. three parts of that daily\nsacrifice are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation, and\nthe oblation of wheat flour.  The Law had pictures or shadows of\nfuture things.  Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire\nworship of the New Testament are portrayed.  The burning of the lamb\nsignifies the death of Christ.  The libation signifies that\neverywhere in the entire world, by the preaching of the Gospel,\nbelievers are sprinkled with the blood of that Lamb, i.e., sanctified,\nas Peter says, 1. Ep. 1, 2: Through sanctification of the Spirit,\nunto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.  The\noblation of wheat flour signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in\nhearts.  As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived,\nso in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not another\ntype, as sufficient for a sacrifice.\n\nTherefore, although a ceremony is a memorial of Christ's death,\nnevertheless it alone is not the daily sacrifice; but the memory\nitself is the daily sacrifice, i.e., preaching and faith, which truly\nbelieves that, by the death of Christ, God has been reconciled.  A\nlibation is required, i.e., the effect of preaching, in order that,\nbeing sprinkled by the Gospel with the blood of Christ, we may be\nsanctified, as those put to death and made alive.  Oblations also are\nrequired, i.e., thanksgiving, confessions, and afflictions.\n\nThus the pharisaic opinion of the _opus operatum_ being cast aside,\nlet us understand that spiritual worship and a daily sacrifice of the\nheart are signified, because in the New Testament the substance of\ngood things should be sought for [as Paul says: In the Old Testament\nis the shadow of things to come but the body and the truth is in\nChrist], i.e., the Holy Ghost, mortification, and quickening.  From\nthese things it is sufficiently apparent that the type of the daily\nsacrifice testifies nothing against us, but rather for us, because we\nseek for all the parts signified by the daily sacrifice.  [We have\nclearly shown all the parts that belonged to the daily sacrifice in\nthe law of Moses, that it must mean a true cordial offering, not an\n_opus operatum_.] The adversaries falsely imagine that the ceremony\nalone is signified, and not also the preaching of the Gospel,\nmortification, and quickening of heart, etc. [which is the best part\nof the Mass, whether they call it a sacrifice or anything else].\n\nNow, therefore, good men will be able to judge readily that the\ncomplaint against us that we abolish the daily sacrifice is most\nfalse.  Experience shows what sort of Antiochi they are who hold\npower in the Church; who under the pretext of religion assume to\nthemselves the kingdom of the world, and who rule without concern for\nreligion and the teaching of the Gospel; who wage war like kings of\nthe world, and have instituted new services in the Church.  For in\nthe Mass the adversaries retain only the ceremony, and publicly apply\nthis to sacrilegious gain.  Afterward they feign that this work, as\napplied on behalf of others, merits for them grace and all good\nthings.  In their sermons they do not teach the Gospel, they do not\nconsole consciences they do not show that sins are freely remitted\nfor Christ's sake, but they set forth the worship of saints, human\nsatisfactions, human traditions, and by these they affirm that men\nare justified before God.  And although some of these traditions are\nmanifestly godless, nevertheless they defend them by violence.  If\nany preachers wish to be regarded more learned, they treat of\nphilosophical questions, which neither the people nor even those who\npropose them understand.  Lastly, those who are more tolerable teach\nthe Law, and say nothing concerning the righteousness of faith.\n\nThe adversaries in the _Confutation_ make a great ado concerning the\ndesolation of churches, namely, that the altars stand unadorned,\nwithout candles and without images.  These trifles they regard as\nornaments to churches.  [Although it is not true that we abolish all\nsuch outward ornaments; yet, even if it were so, Daniel is not\nspeaking of such things as are altogether external and do not belong\nto the Christian Church.] It is a far different desolation which\nDaniel means, 11, 31; 12, 11, namely, ignorance of the Gospel.  For\nthe people, overwhelmed by the multitude and variety of traditions\nand opinions, were in no way able to embrace the sum of Christian\ndoctrine.  [For the adversaries preach mostly of human ordinances,\nwhereby consciences are led from Christ to confidence in their own\nworks.] For who of the people ever understood the doctrine of\nrepentance of which the adversaries treat?  And yet this is the chief\ntopic of Christian doctrine.\n\nConsciences were tormented by the enumeration of offenses and by\nsatisfactions.  Of faith by which we freely receive the remission of\nsins, no mention whatever was made by the adversaries.  Concerning\nthe exercises of faith struggling with despair, and the free\nremission of sins for Christ's sake, all the books and all the\nsermons of the adversaries were silent [worse than worthless, and,\nmoreover, caused untold damage].  To these, the horrible profanation\nof the masses and many other godless services in the churches were\nadded.  This is the desolation which Daniel describes.\n\nOn the contrary, by the favor of God, the priests among us attend to\nthe ministry of the Word, teach the Gospel concerning the blessings\nof Christ, and show that the remission of sins occurs freely for\nChrist's sake.  This doctrine brings sure consolation to consciences.\nThe doctrine of [the Ten Commandments and] good works which God\ncommands is also added.  The worth and use of the Sacraments are\ndeclared.\n\nBut if the use of the Sacrament would be the daily sacrifice,\nnevertheless we would retain it rather than the adversaries, because\nwith them priests hired for pay use the Sacrament.  With us there is\na more frequent and more conscientious use.  For the people use it,\nbut after having first been instructed and examined.  For men are\ntaught concerning the true use of the Sacrament that it was\ninstituted for the purpose of being a seal and testimony of the free\nremission of sins, and that, accordingly, it ought to admonish\nalarmed consciences to be truly confident and believe that their sins\nare freely remitted.  Since, therefore, we retain both the preaching\nof the Gospel and the lawful use of the Sacrament, the daily\nsacrifice remains with us.\n\nAnd if we must speak of the outward appearance, attendance upon\nchurch is better among us than among the adversaries.  For the\naudiences are held by useful and clear sermons.  But neither the\npeople nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of the\nadversaries.  [There is nothing that so attaches people to the church\nas good preaching.  But our adversaries preach their people out of\nthe churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of\nChristian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other\nfables.] And the true adornment of the churches is godly, useful, and\nclear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, ardent prayer, and\nthe like.  Candles, golden vessels [tapers, altar-cloths, images],\nand similar adornments are becoming, but they are not the adornment\nthat properly belongs to the Church.  But if the adversaries make\nworship consist in such matters, and not in the preaching of the\nGospel, in faith, and the conflicts of faith they are to be numbered\namong those whom Daniel describes as worshiping their God with gold\nand silver, Dan. 11, 38.\n\nThey quote also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5, 1: Every high\npriest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining\nto God that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.  Hence\nthey conclude that, since in the New Testament there are high priests\nand priests, it follows that there is also a sacrifice for sins.\nThis passage particularly makes an impression on the unlearned,\nespecially when the pomp of the priesthood [the garments of Aaron,\nsince in the Old Testament there were many ornaments of gold, silver,\nand purple] and the sacrifices of the Old Testament are spread before\nthe eyes.  This resemblance deceives the ignorant, so that they judge\nthat, according to the same manner, a ceremonial sacrifice ought to\nexist among us, which should be applied on behalf of the sins of\nothers, just as in the Old Testament.  Neither is the service of the\nmasses and the rest of the polity of the Pope anything else than\nfalse zeal in behalf of the misunderstood Levitical polity.  [They\nhave not understood that the New Testament is occupied with other\nmatters, and that, if such ceremonies are used for the training of\nthe young, a limit must be fixed for them.]\n\nAnd although our belief has its chief testimonies in the Epistle to\nthe Hebrews, nevertheless the adversaries distort against us\nmutilated passages from this Epistle, as in this very passage, where\nit is said that every high priest is ordained to offer sacrifices for\nsins.  Scripture itself immediately adds that Christ is High Priest,\nHeb. 5, 5. 6. 10. The preceding words speak of the Levitical\npriesthood, and signify that the Levitical priesthood was an image of\nthe priesthood of Christ.  For the Levitical sacrifices for sins did\nnot merit the remission of sins before God; they were only an image\nof the sacrifice of Christ, which was to be the one propitiatory\nsacrifice, as we have said above.  Therefore the Epistle is occupied\nto a great extent with the topic that the ancient priesthood and the\nancient sacrifices were instituted not for the purpose of meriting\nthe remission of sins before God or reconciliation, but only to\nsignify the future sacrifice of Christ alone.  For in the Old\nTestament it was necessary for saints to be justified by faith\nderived from the promise of the remission of sins that was to be\ngranted for Christ's sake, just as saints are also justified in the\nNew Testament.  From the beginning of the world it was necessary for\nall saints to believe that Christ would be the promised offering and\nsatisfaction for sins, as Isaiah teaches, 53, 10: When Thou shalt\nmake His soul an offering for sin.\n\nSince, therefore, in the Old Testament, sacrifices did not merit\nreconciliation, unless by a figure (for they merited civil\nreconciliation), but signified the coming sacrifice, it follows that\nChrist is the only sacrifice applied on behalf of the sins of others.\nTherefore, in the New Testament no sacrifice is left to be applied\nfor the sins of others, except the one sacrifice of Christ upon the\ncross.\n\nThey altogether err who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited the\nremission of sins before God, and, by this example in addition to the\ndeath of Christ, require in the New Testament sacrifices that are to\nbe applied on behalf of others.  This imagination absolutely destroys\nthe merit of Christ's passion and the righteousness of faith, and\ncorrupts the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and instead of\nChrist makes for us other mediators and propitiators out of the\npriests and sacrificers, who daily sell their work in the churches.\n\nTherefore, if any one would thus infer that in the New Testament a\npriest is needed to make offering for sins, this must be conceded\nonly of Christ.  And the entire Epistle to the Hebrews confirms this\nexplanation.  And if, in addition to the death of Christ, we were to\nseek for any other satisfaction to be applied for the sins of others\nand to reconcile God, this would be nothing more than to make other\nmediators in addition to Christ.  Again, as the priesthood of the New\nTestament is the ministry of the Spirit, as Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 6,\nit, accordingly, has but the one sacrifice of Christ, which is\nsatisfactory and applied for the sins of others.  Besides it has no\nsacrifices like the Levitical, which could be applied _ex opere\noperato_ on behalf of others, but it tenders to others the Gospel and\nthe Sacraments, that by means of these they may conceive faith and\nthe Holy Ghost and be mortified and quickened, because the ministry\nof the Spirit conflicts with the application of an _opus operatum_.\n[For, unless there is personal faith and a life wrought by the Holy\nSpirit, the _opus operatum_ of another cannot render me godly nor\nsave me.] For the ministry of the Spirit is that through which the\nHoly Ghost is efficacious in hearts; and therefore this ministry is\nprofitable to others, when it is efficacious in them, and regenerates\nand quickens them.  This does not occur by the application _ex opere\noperato_ of the work of another on behalf of others.\n\nWe have shown the reason why the Mass does not justify _ex opere\noperato_, and why, when applied on behalf of others, it does not\nmerit remission, because both conflict with the righteousness of\nfaith.  For it is impossible that remission of sins should occur, and\nthe terrors of death and sin be overcome by any work or anything,\nexcept by faith in Christ, according to Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by\nfaith, we have peace.\n\nIn addition, we have shown that the Scriptures, which are cited\nagainst us, in no way favor the godless opinion of the adversaries\nconcerning the opus operatum.  All good men among all nations can\njudge this.  Therefore the error of Thomas is to be rejected, who\nwrote: That the body of the Lord, once offered on the cross for\noriginal debt, is continually offered for daily offenses on the altar\nin order that, in this, the Church might have a service whereby to\nreconcile God to herself.  The other common errors are also to be\nrejected, as, that the Mass _ex opere operato_ confers grace upon one\nemploying it; likewise that when applied for others, even for wicked\npersons, provided they do not interpose an obstacle, it merits for\nthem the remission of sins, of guilt and punishment.  All these\nthings are false and godless, and lately invented by unlearned monks,\nand obscure the glory of Christ's passion and the righteousness of\nfaith.\n\nAnd from these errors infinite others sprang, as, that the masses\navail when applied for many, just as much as when applied\nindividually.  The sophists have particular degrees of merit, just as\nmoney-changers have grades of weight for gold or silver.  Besides\nthey sell the Mass, as a price for obtaining what each one seeks: to\nmerchants, that business may be prosperous; to hunters, that hunting\nmay be successful, and infinite other things.  Lastly, they apply it\nalso to the dead; by the application of the Sacrament they liberate\nsouls from the pains of purgatory; although without faith the Mass is\nof service not even to the living.  Neither are the adversaries able\nto produce even one syllable from the Scriptures in defense of these\nfables which they teach with great authority in the Church, neither\ndo they have the testimonies of the ancient Church nor of the Fathers.\n[Therefore they are impious and blind people who knowingly despise\nand trample under foot the plain truth of God.]\n\n\n\n\nPart 31\n\n\n_What the Fathers Thought concerning Sacrifice._\n\nAnd since we have explained the passages of Scripture which are cited\nagainst us, we must reply also concerning the Fathers.  We are not\nignorant that the Mass is called by the Fathers a sacrifice; but they\ndo not mean that the Mass confers grace _ex opere operato_, and that,\nwhen applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of\nsins, of guilt and punishment.  Where are such monstrous stories to\nbe found in the Fathers?  But they openly testify that they are\nspeaking of thanksgiving.  Accordingly they call it a eucharist.  We\nhave said above, however, that a eucharistic sacrifice does not merit\nreconciliation, but is made by those who have been reconciled, just\nas afflictions do not merit reconciliation, but are eucharistic\nsacrifices when those who have been reconciled endure them.\n\nAnd this reply, in general, to the sayings of the Fathers defends us\nsufficiently against the adversaries.  For it is certain that these\nfigments concerning the merit of the opus operatum are found nowhere\nin the Fathers.  But in order that the whole case may be the better\nunderstood, we also shall state those things concerning the use of\nthe Sacrament which actually harmonize with the Fathers and Scripture.\n\n\n\n\nPart 32\n\n\nSome clever men imagine that the Lord's Supper was instituted for two\nreasons.  First, that it might be a mark and testimony of profession,\njust as a particular shape of hood is the sign of a particular\nprofession.  Then they think that such a mark was especially pleasing\nto Christ, namely, a feast to signify mutual union and friendship\namong Christians, because banquets are signs of covenant and\nfriendship.  But this is a secular view; neither does it show the\nchief use of the things delivered by God; it speaks only of the\nexercise of love, which men, however profane and worldly, understand,\nit does not speak of faith, the nature of which few understand.\n\nThe Sacraments are signs of God's will toward us, and not merely\nsigns of men among each other, and they are right in defining that\nSacraments in the New Testament are signs of grace.  And because in a\nsacrament there are two things, a sign and the Word, the Word, in the\nNew Testament, is the promise of grace added.  The promise of the New\nTestament is the promise of the remission of sins, as the text, Luke\n22, 19, says: This is My body, which is given for you.  This cup is\nthe New Testament in My blood which is shed for many for the\nremission of sins.  Therefore the Word offers the remission of sins.\nAnd a ceremony is, as it were, a picture or seal, as Paul, Rom. 4, 11,\ncalls it, of the Word, making known the promise.  Therefore, just as\nthe promise is useless unless it is received by faith, so a ceremony\nis useless unless such faith is added as is truly confident that the\nremission of sins is here offered.  And this faith encourages\ncontrite minds.  And just as the Word has been given in order to\nexcite this faith, so the Sacrament has been instituted in order that\nthe outward appearance meeting the eyes might move the heart to\nbelieve [and strengthen faith].  For through these, namely, through\nWord and Sacrament, the Holy Ghost works.\n\nAnd such use of the Sacrament, in which faith quickens terrified\nhearts, is a service of the New Testament, because the New Testament\nrequires spiritual dispositions, mortification and quickening.  [For\naccording to the New Testament the highest service of God is rendered\ninwardly in the heart.] And for this use Christ instituted it, since\nHe commanded them thus to do in remembrance of Him.  For to remember\nChrist is not the idle celebration of a show [not something that is\naccomplished only by some gestures and actions], or one instituted\nfor the sake of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses is\ncelebrated in tragedies, but it is to remember the benefits of Christ\nand receive them by faith so as to be quickened by them.  Psalm 111,\n4. 5 accordingly says: He hath made His wonderful works to be\nremembered: the Lord is gracious and full of compassion.  He hath\ngiven meat unto them that fear Him.  For it signifies that the will\nand mercy of God should be discerned in the ceremony.  But that faith\nwhich apprehends mercy quickens.  And this is the principal use of\nthe Sacrament, in which it is apparent who are fit for the Sacrament,\nnamely, terrified consciences and how they ought to use it.\n\nThe sacrifice [thank-offering or thanksgiving] also is added.  For\nthere are several ends for one object.  After conscience encouraged\nby faith has perceived from what terrors it is freed, then indeed it\nfervently gives thanks for the benefit and passion of Christ, and\nuses the ceremony itself to the praise of God, in order by this\nobedience to show its gratitude; and testifies that it holds in high\nesteem the gifts of God.  Thus the ceremony becomes a sacrifice of\npraise.\n\nAnd the Fathers, indeed, speak of a twofold effect, of the comfort of\nconsciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise.  The former of these\neffects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the Sacrament; the\nlatter pertains to the sacrifice.  Of consolation Ambrose says: Go to\nHim and be absolved, because He is the remission of sins.  Do you ask\nwho He is?  Hear Him when He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life;\nhe that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me\nshall never thirst.  This passage testifies that in the Sacrament the\nremission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this ought to be\nreceived by faith.  Infinite testimonies to this effect are found in\nthe Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the _opus\noperatum_, and to a work to be applied on behalf of others; although\nthe Fathers clearly require faith, and speak of the consolation\nbelonging to every one, and not of the application.\n\nBesides these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving,\nsuch as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning those\ncommuning in a godly way.  Piety, says he, in thanksgiving the\nBestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between what\nhas been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., piety regards both\nwhat has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., it compares the\ngreatness of God's blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin and\ndeath, with each other, and gives thanks, etc. And hence the term\neucharist arose in the Church.  Nor indeed is the ceremony itself,\nthe giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf of\nothers, in order to merit for them the remission of sins, etc., in\norder to liberate the souls of the dead.  These things conflict with\nthe righteousness of faith, as though, without faith, a ceremony can\nprofit either the one performing it or others.\n\n\n\n\nPart 33\n\n\n_Of the Term Mass._\n\nThe adversaries also refer us to philology.  From the names of the\nMass they derive arguments which do not require a long discussion.\nFor even though the Mass be called a sacrifice, it does not follow\nthat it must confer grace _ex opere operato_, or, when applied on\nbehalf of others, merit for them the remission of sins, etc.\n_Leitourgia_, they say, signifies a sacrifice, and the Greeks call\nthe Mass liturgy.  Why do they here omit the old appellation synaxris,\nwhich shows that the Mass was formerly the communion of many?  But\nlet us speak of the word liturgy.  This word done not properly\nsignify a sacrifice, but rather the public ministry, and agrees aptly\nwith our belief, namely, that one minister who consecrates tenders\nthe body and blood of the lord to the rest of the people, just as one\nminister who preaches tenders the Gospel to the people, as Paul says,\n1 Cor. 4, 1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ\nand stewards of the mysteries of God, i.e., of the Gospel and the\nSacraments.  And 2 Cor. 5, 20: We are ambassadors for Christ as\nthough God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be\nye reconciled to God.  Thus the term _Leitourgia_ agrees aptly with\nthe ministry.  For it is an old word, ordinarily employed in public\ncivil administrations, and signified to the Greeks public burdens, as\ntribute, the expense of equipping a fleet, or similar things, as the\noration of Demosthenes, _FOR LEPTINES_, testifies, all of which is\noccupied with the discussion of public duties and immunities:\n_Phehsei de anaxious tinas anthrohpous euromenous ateleian\nekdedukenai tas leitourgias_, i.e.: He will say that some unworthy\nmen, having found an immunity, have withdrawn from public burdens.\nAnd thus they spoke in the time of the Romana, as the rescript of\nPertinax, _De Iure Immunitatis_, l.  Semper, shows: _Ei kai meh\npasohn leitourgiohn tous pateras ho tohn teknohn arithmos aneitai_,\nEven though the number of children does not liberate parents from all\npublic burdens.  And the Commentary upon Demosthenes states that\n_leitourgia_ is a kind of tribute, the expense of the games, the\nexpense of equipping vessels, of attending to the gymnasia and\nsimilar public offices.  And Paul in 2 Cor. 9, 12 employs it for a\ncollection.  The taking of the collection not only supplies those\nthings which are wanting to the saints, but also causes them to give\nmore thanks abundantly to God, etc. And in Phil. 2, 25 he calls\nEpaphroditus a _leitourgos_, one who ministered to my wants, where\nassuredly a sacrificer cannot be understood.  But there is no need of\nmore testimonies, since examples are everywhere obvious to those\nreading the Greek writers, in whom _leitourgia_ is employed for\npublic civil burdens or ministries.  And on account of the diphthong,\ngrammarians do not derive it from _liteh_, which signifies prayers,\nbut from public goods, which they call _leita_, so that _leitourgeoh_\nmeans, I attend to, I administer public goods.\n\nRidiculous is their inference that, since mention is made in the Holy\nScriptures of an altar, therefore the Mass must be a sacrifice; for\nthe figure of an altar is referred to by Paul only by way of\ncomparison.  And they fabricate that the Mass has been so called from\n_mzbh_, an altar.  What need is there of an etymology so far fetched,\nunless it be to show their knowledge of the Hebrew language?  What\nneed is there to seek the etymology from a distance, when the term\nMass is found in Deut. 16, 10, where it signifies the collections or\ngifts of the people, not the offering of the priest?  For individuals\ncoming to the celebration of the Passover were obliged to bring some\ngift as a contribution.  In the beginning the Christians also\nretained this custom.  Coming together they brought bread, wine, and\nother things, as the Canons of the Apostles testify.  Thence a part\nwas taken to be consecrated; the rest was distributed to the poor.\nWith this custom they also retained Mass as the name of the\ncontributions.  And on account of such contributions it appears also\nthat the Mass was elsewhere called _agapeh_, unless one would prefer\nthat it was so called on account of the common feast.  But let us\nomit these trifles.  For it is ridiculous that the adversaries should\nproduce such trifling conjectures concerning a matter of such great\nimportance.  For although the Mass is called an offering, in what\ndoes the term favor the dreams concerning the _opus operatum_, and\nthe application which, they imagine, merits for others the remission\nof sins?  And it can be called an offering for the reason that\nprayers, thanksgivings, and the entire worship are there offered, as\nit is also called a eucharist.  But neither ceremonies nor prayers\nprofit _ex opere operato_, without faith.  Although we are disputing\nhere not concerning prayers, but particularly concerning the Lord's\nSupper.\n\n[Here you can see what rude asses our adversaries are.  They say that\nthe term _missa_ is derived from the term _misbeach_, which signifies\nan altar; hence we are to conclude that the Mass is a sacrifice; for\nsacrifices are offered on an altar.  Again, the word _liturgia_, by\nwhich the Greeks call the Mass, is also to denote a sacrifice.  This\nclaim we shall briefly answer.  All the world sees that from such\nreasons this heathenish and antichristian error does not follow\nnecessarily, that the Mass benefits _ex opere operato sine bono motu\nutentis_.  Therefore they are asses, because in such a highly\nimportant matter they bring forward such silly things.  Nor do the\nasses know any grammar.  For missa and liturgia do not mean sacrifice.\n_Missa_, in Hebrew, denotes a joint contribution.  For this may have\nbeen a custom among Christians, that they brought meat and drink for\nthe benefit of the poor to their assemblies.  This custom was derived\nfrom the Jews, who had to bring such contributions on their festivals,\nthese they called _missa_.  Likewise, _liturgia_, in Greek, really\ndenotes an office in which a person ministers to the congregation.\nThis is well applied to our teaching, because with us the priest, as\na common servant of those who wish to commune, ministers to them the\nholy Sacrament.\n\nSome think that _missa_ is not derived from the Hebrew, but signifies\nas much as _remissio_ the forgiveness of sin.  For, the communion\nbeing ended, the announcement used to be made: _Ite, missa est_:\nDepart, you have forgiveness of sins.  They cite, as proof that this\nis so, the fact that the Greeks used to say: _Lais Aphesis (laois\naphsesis)_, which also means that they had been pardoned.  If this\nwere so, it would be an excellent meaning, for in connection with\nthis ceremony forgiveness of sins must always be preached and\nproclaimed.  But the case before us is little aided, no matter what\nthe meaning of the word _missa_ is.]\n\nThe Greek canon says also many things concerning the offering, but it\nshows plainly that it is not speaking properly of the body and blood\nof the Lord, but of the whole service of prayers and thanksgivings.\nFor it says thus: _Kai poiehson hemas axious genesthai tou\nprospserein soi deehseis kai hikesias kai thusias anaimaktous huper\npantos laou._ When this is rightly understood, it gives no offense.\nFor it prays that we be made worthy to offer prayers and\nsupplications and bloodless sacrifices for the people.  For he calls\neven prayers bloodless sacrifices.  Just as also a little afterward:\n_Eti prospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn kai anaimakton latreian_,\nWe offer, he says this reasonable and bloodless service.  For they\nexplain this inaptly who would rather interpret this of a reasonable\nsacrifice, and transfer it to the very body of Christ, although the\ncanon speaks of the entire worship, and in opposition to the _opus\noperatum_ Paul has spoken of _logikeh latreia_ [reasonable service],\nnamely, of the worship of the mind, of fear, of faith, of prayer, of\nthanksgiving, etc.\n\n\n\n\nPart 34\n\n\n_Of the Mass for the Dead._\n\nOur adversaries have no testimonies and no command from Scripture for\ndefending the application of the ceremony for liberating the souls of\nthe dead, although from this they derive infinite revenue.  Nor,\nindeed, is it a light sin to establish such services in the Church\nwithout the command of God and without the example of Scripture, and\nto apply to the dead the Lord's Supper, which was instituted for\ncommemoration and preaching among the living [for the purpose of\nstrengthening the faith of those who use the ceremony].  This is to\nviolate the Second Commandment, by abusing God's name.\n\nFor, in the first place, it is a dishonor to the Gospel to hold that\na ceremony _ex opere operato_, without faith, is a sacrifice\nreconciling God, and making satisfaction for sins.  It is a horrible\nsaying to ascribe as much to the work of a priest as to the death of\nChrist.  Again, sin and death cannot be overcome unless by faith in\nChrist, as Paul teaches, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have\npeace with God, and therefore the punishment of purgatory cannot be\novercome by the application of the work of another.\n\nNow we shall omit the sort of testimonies concerning purgatory that\nthe adversaries have: what kinds of punishments they think there are\nin purgatory, what grounds the doctrine of satisfactions has, which\nwe have shown above to be most vain.  We shall only present this in\nopposition: It is certain that the Lord's Supper was instituted on\naccount of the remission of guilt.  For it offers the remission of\nsins, where it is necessary that guilt be truly understood.  [For\nwhat consolation would we have if forgiveness of sin were here\noffered us, and yet there would be no remission of guilt?] And\nnevertheless it does not make satisfaction for guilt, otherwise the\nMass would be equal to the death of Christ.  Neither can the\nremission of guilt be received in any other way than by faith.\nTherefore the Mass is not a satisfaction, but a promise and Sacrament\nthat require faith.\n\nAnd, indeed, it is necessary that all godly persons be seized with\nthe most bitter grief [shed tears of blood, from anguish and sorrow]\nif they consider that the Mass has been in great part transferred to\nthe dead and to satisfactions for punishments.  This is to banish the\ndaily sacrifice from the Church; this is the kingdom of Antiochus,\nwho transferred the most salutary promises concerning the remission\nof guilt and concerning faith to the most vain opinions concerning\nsatisfactions; this is to defile the Gospel, to corrupt the use of\nthe Sacraments.  These are the persons [the real blasphemers] whom\nPaul has said, 1 Cor. 11, 27, to be guilty of the body and blood of\nthe Lord, who have suppressed the doctrine concerning faith and the\nremission of sins, and, under the pretext of satisfactions, have\ndevoted the body and blood of the Lord to sacrilegious gain.  And\nthey will at some time pay the penalty for this sacrilege.  [God will\none day vindicate the Second Commandment, and pour out a great,\nhorrible wrath upon them.] Therefore we and all godly consciences\nshould be on our guard against approving the abuses of the\nadversaries.\n\nBut let us return to the case.  Since the Mass is not a satisfaction,\neither for punishment or for guilt, _ex opere operato_, without faith,\nit follows that the application on behalf of the dead is useless.\nNor is there need here of a longer discussion.  For it is evident\nthat these applications on behalf of the dead have no testimonies\nfrom the Scriptures.  Neither is it safe, without the authority of\nScripture, to institute forms of worship in the Church.  And if it\nwill at any time be necessary, we shall speak at greater length\nconcerning this entire subject.  For why should we now contend with\nadversaries who understand neither what a sacrifice, nor what a\nsacrament, nor what remission of sins, nor what faith is?\n\nNeither does the Greek canon apply the offering as a satisfaction for\nthe dead, because it applies it equally for all the blessed\npatriarchs, prophets, apostles.  It appears therefore that the Greeks\nmake an offering as thanksgiving, and do not apply it as satisfaction\nfor punishments.  [For, of course, it is not their intention to\ndeliver the prophets and apostles from purgatory, but only to offer\nup thanks along and together with them for the exalted eternal\nblessings that have been given to them and us.] Although they speak,\nmoreover, not of the offering alone of the body and blood of the Lord,\nbut of the other parts of the Mass, namely, prayers and thanksgiving.\nFor after the consecration they pray that it may profit those who\npartake of it, they do not speak of others.  Then they add: _Eti\nprospheromen soi tehn logikehn tautehn latreian huper tohn en pistei\nanapausamenohn propatorohn, paterohn, patriarchohn, prophertohn,\napostolohn_, etc. [\"Yet we offer to you this reasonable service for\nthose having departed in faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs\nprophets, apostles,\" etc.] Reasonable service, however, does not\nsignify the offering itself, but prayers and all things which are\nthere transacted.  Now, as regards the adversaries' citing the\nFathers concerning the offering for the dead, we know that the\nancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit, but\nwe disapprove of the application _ex opere operato_ of the Lord's\nSupper on behalf of the dead.  Neither do the ancients favor the\nadversaries concerning the _opus operatum_.  And even though they\nhave the testimonies especially of Gregory or the moderns, we oppose\nto them the most clear and certain Scriptures.  And there is a great\ndiversity among the Fathers.  They were men, and could err and be\ndeceived.  Although if they would now become alive again, and would\nsee their sayings assigned as pretexts for the notorious falsehoods\nwhich the adversaries teach concerning the opus operatum, they would\ninterpret themselves far differently.\n\nThe adversaries also falsely cite against us the condemnation of\nAerius, who, they say was condemned for the reason that he denied\nthat in the Mass an offering is made for the living and the dead.\nThey frequently use this dexterous turn, cite the ancient heresies\nand falsely compare our cause with these in order by this comparison\nto crush us.  [The asses are not ashamed of any lies.  Nor do they\nknow who Aerius was and what he taught.] Epiphanius testifies that\nAerius held that prayers for the dead are useless.  With this he\nfinds fault.  Neither do we favor Aerius, but we on our part are\ncontending with you who are defending a heresy manifestly conflicting\nwith the prophets, apostles and holy Fathers, namely, that the Mass\njustifies _ex opere operato_, that it merits the remission of guilt\nand punishment even for the unjust, to whom it is applied, if they do\nnot present an obstacle.  Of these pernicious errors, which detract\nfrom the glory of Christ's passion, and entirely overthrow the\ndoctrine concerning the righteousness of faith, we disapprove.  There\nwas a similar persuasion of the godless in the Law, namely, that they\nmerited the remission of sins, not freely by faith, but through\nsacrifices _ex opere operato_.  Therefore they increased these\nservices and sacrifices, instituted the worship of Baal in Israel,\nand even sacrificed in the groves in Judah.  Therefore the prophets\ncondemn this opinion, and wage war not only with the worshipers of\nBaal, but also with other priests who, with this godless opinion,\nmade sacrifices ordained by God.  But this opinion inheres in the\nworld, and always will inhere namely, that services and sacrifices\nare propitiations.  Carnal men cannot endure that alone to the\nsacrifice of Christ the honor is ascribed that it is a propitiation,\nbecause they do not understand the righteousness of faith, but\nascribe equal honor to the rest of the services and sacrifices.  Just\nas, therefore, in Judah among the godless priests a false opinion\nconcerning sacrifices inhered, just as in Israel, Baalitic services\ncontinued, and, nevertheless, a Church of God was there which\ndisapproved of godless services, so Baalitic worship inheres in the\ndomain of the Pope, namely, the abuse of the Mass, which they apply,\nthat by it they may merit for the unrighteous the remission of guilt\nand punishment.  [And yet, as God still kept His Church, i.e., some\nsaints, in Israel and Judah, so God still preserved His Church, i.e.,\nsome saints, under the Papacy, so that the Christian Church has not\nentirely perished.] And it seems that this Baalitic worship will\nendure as long as the reign of the Pope, until Christ will come to\njudge, and by the glory of His advent destroy the reign of Antichrist.\nMeanwhile all who truly believe the Gospel [that they may truly\nhonor God and have a constant comfort against sins; for God has\ngraciously caused His Gospel to shine, that we might be warned and\nsaved] ought to condemn these wicked services, devised, contrary to\nGod's command, in order to obscure the glory of Christ and the\nrighteousness of faith.\n\nWe have briefly said these things of the Mass in order that all good\nmen in all parts of the world may be able to understand that with the\ngreatest zeal we maintain the dignity of the Mass and show its true\nuse, and that we have the most just reasons for dissenting from the\nadversaries.  And we would have all good men admonished not to aid\nthe adversaries in the profanation of the Mass lest they burden\nthemselves with other men's sin.  It is a great cause and a great\nsubject not inferior to the transaction of the prophet Elijah, who\ncondemned the worship of Baal.  We have presented a case of such\nimportance with the greatest moderation, and now reply without\ncasting any reproach.  But if the adversaries will compel us to\ncollect all kinds of abuses of the Mass, the case will not be treated\nwith such forbearance.\n\n\n\n\nPart 35\n\n\nArticle XXVII (XIII): _Of Monastic Vows._\n\nIn the town of Eisenach, in Thuringia, there was, to our knowledge, a\nmonk, John Hilten, who, thirty years ago, was cast by his fraternity\ninto prison because he had protested against certain most notorious\nabuses.  For we have seen his writings, from which it can be well\nunderstood what the nature of his doctrine was [that he was a\nChristian, and preached according to the Scriptures].  And those who\nknew him testify that he was a mild old man, and serious indeed, but\nwithout moroseness.  He predicted many things, some of which have\nthus far transpired, and others still seem to impend which we do not\nwish to recite, lest it may be inferred that they are narrated either\nfrom hatred toward one or from partiality to another.  But finally,\nwhen, either on account of his age or the foulness of the prison, he\nfell into disease, he sent for the guardian in order to tell him of\nhis sickness; and when the guardian, inflamed with pharisaic hatred,\nhad begun to reprove the man harshly on account of his kind of\ndoctrine, which seemed to be injurious to the kitchen, then, omitting\nall mention of his sickness, he said with a sigh that he was bearing\nthese injuries patiently for Christ's sake, since he had indeed\nneither written nor taught anything which could overthrow the\nposition of the monks, but had only protested against some well-known\nabuses.  But another one he said, will come in A.D. 1516, who will\ndestroy you, neither will you be able to resist him.  This very\nopinion concerning the downward career of the power of the monks, and\nthis number of years, his friends afterwards found also written by\nhim in his commentaries, which he had left, concerning certain\npassages of Daniel.  But although the outcome will teach how much\nweight should be given to this declaration, yet there are other signs\nwhich threaten a change in the power of the monks, that are no less\ncertain than oracles.  For it is evident how much hypocrisy, ambition,\navarice there is in the monasteries, how much ignorance and cruelty\namong all the unlearned, what vanity in their sermons and in devising\ncontinually new means of gaining money.  [The more stupid asses the\nmonks are, the more stubborn, furious bitter, the more venomous asps\nthey are in persecuting the truth and the Word of God.] And there are\nother faults, which we do not care to mention.  While they once were\n[not jails or everlasting prisons, but] schools for Christian\ninstruction, now they have degenerated, as though from a golden to an\niron age, or as the Platonic cube degenerates into bad harmonies,\nwhich, Plato says brings destruction.  [Now this precious gold is\nturned to dross, and the wine to water.] All the most wealthy\nmonasteries support only an idle crowd, which gluttonizes upon the\npublic alms of the Church.  Christ, however, teaches concerning the\nsalt that has lost its savor that it should be cast out and be\ntrodden under foot, Matt. 5, 13. Therefore the monks by such morals\nare singing their own fate [requiem, and it will soon be over with\nthem].  And now another sign is added, because they are in many\nplaces, the instigators of the death of good men.  [This blood of\nAbel cries against them and] These murders God undoubtedly will\nshortly avenge.  Nor indeed do we find fault with all, for we are of\nthe opinion that there are here and there some good men in the\nmonasteries who judge moderately concerning human and factitious\nservices, as some writers call them, and who do not approve of the\ncruelty which the hypocrites among them exercise.\n\nBut we are now discussing the kind of doctrine which the composers of\nthe _Confutation_ are now defending and not the question whether vows\nshould be observed.  For we hold that lawful vows ought to be\nobserved; but whether these services merit the remission of sins and\njustification; whether they are satisfactions for sins, whether they\nare equal to Baptism, whether they are the observance of precepts and\ncounsels; whether they are evangelical perfection; whether they have\nthe merits of supererogation; whether these merits, when applied on\nbehalf of others save them, whether vows made with these opinions are\nlawful; whether vows are lawful that are undertaken under the pretext\nof religion, merely for the sake of the belly and idleness, whether\nthose are truly vows that have been extorted either from the\nunwilling or from those who on account of age were not able to judge\nconcerning the kind of life, whom parents or friends thrust into the\nmonasteries that they might be supported at the public expense,\nwithout the loss of private patrimony, whether vows are lawful that\nopenly tend to an evil issue, either because on account of weakness\nthey are not observed, or because those who are in these fraternities\nare compelled to approve and aid the abuses of the Mass, the godless\nworship of saints, and the counsels to rage against good men:\nconcerning these questions we are treating.  And although we have\nsaid very many things in the Confession concerning such vows as even\nthe canons of the Popes condemn, nevertheless the adversaries command\nthat all things which we have produced be rejected.  For they have\nused these words.\n\nAnd it is worth while to hear how they pervert our reasons, and what\nthey adduce to fortify their own cause.  Accordingly, we will briefly\nrun over a few of our arguments, and in passing, explain away the\nsophistry of the adversaries in reference to them.  Since, however,\nthis entire cause has been carefully and fully treated by Luther in\nthe book to which he gave the title _De Votis Monasticis_, we wish\nhere to consider that book as reiterated.\n\nFirst, it is very certain that a vow is not lawful by which he who\nvows thinks that he merits the remission of sins before God, or makes\nsatisfaction before God for sins.  For this opinion is a manifest\ninsult to the Gospel, which teaches that the remission of sins is\nfreely granted us for Christ's sake, as has been said above at some\nlength.  Therefore we have correctly quoted the declaration of Paul\nto the Galatians, Gal. 5, 4: Christ is become of no effect unto you,\nwhosoever of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace.\nThose who seek the remission of sins not by faith in Christ, but by\nmonastic works detract from the honor of Christ, and crucify Christ\nafresh.  But hear, hear how the composers of the _Confutation_ escape\nin this place!  They explain this passage of Paul only concerning the\nLaw of Moses, and they add that the monks observe all things for\nChrist's sake, and endeavor to live the nearer the Gospel in order to\nmerit eternal life.  And they add a horrible peroration in these\nwords: Wherefore those things are wicked that are here alleged\nagainst monasticism.  O Christ, how long wilt Thou bear these\nreproaches with which our enemies treat Thy Gospel?  We have said in\nthe Confession that the remission of sins is received freely for\nChrist's sake, through faith.  If this is not the very voice of the\nGospel, if it is not the judgment of the eternal Father, which Thou\nwho art in the bosom of the Father hast revealed to the world, we are\njustly blamed.  But Thy death is a witness, Thy resurrection is a\nwitness, the Holy Ghost is a witness, Thy entire Church is a witness,\nthat it is truly the judgment of the Gospel that we obtain remission\nof sins, not on account of our merits, but on account of Thee,\nthrough faith.\n\nWhen Paul denies that by the Law of Moses men merit the remission of\nsins, he withdraws this praise much more from human traditions, and\nthis he clearly testifies Col. 2, 16. If the Law of Moses, which was\ndivinely revealed, did not merit the remission of sins, how much less\ndo these silly observances [monasticism rosaries, etc.], averse to\nthe civil custom of life, merit the remission of sins!\n\n\nThe adversaries feign that Paul abolishes the Law of Moses, and that\nChrist succeeds in such a way that He does not freely grant the\nremission of sins, but on account of the works of other laws, if any\nare now devised.  By this godless and fanatical imagination they bury\nthe benefit of Christ.  Then they feign that among those who observe\nthis Law of Christ, the monks observe it more closely than others, on\naccount of their hypocritical poverty, obedience, and chastity, since\nindeed all these things are full of sham.  In the greatest abundance\nof all things they boast of poverty.  Although no class of men has\ngreater license than the monks [who have masterfully decreed that\nthey are exempt from obedience to bishops and princes], they boast of\nobedience.  Of celibacy we do not like to speak, how pure this is in\nmost of those who desire to be continent, Gerson indicates.  And how\nmany of them desire to be continent [not to mention the thoughts of\ntheir hearts]?\n\nOf course, in this sham life the monks live more closely in\naccordance with the Gospel!  Christ does not succeed Moses in such a\nway as to remit sins on account of our works, but so as to set His\nown merits and His own propitiation on our behalf against God's wrath\nthat we may be freely forgiven.  Now, he who apart from Christ's\npropitiation, opposes his own merits to God's wrath, and on account\nof his own merits endeavors to obtain the remission of sins, whether\nhe present the works of the Mosaic Law, or of the Decalog, or of the\nrule of Benedict, or of the rule of Augustine, or of other rules,\nannuls the promise of Christ, has cast away Christ, and has fallen\nfrom grace.  This is the verdict of Paul.\n\nBut, behold, most clement Emperor Charles behold, ye princes, behold,\nall ye ranks, how great is the impudence of the adversaries!\nAlthough we have cited the declaration of Paul to this effect, they\nhave written: Wicked are those things that are here cited against\nmonasticism.  But what is more certain than that men obtain the\nremission of sins by faith for Christ's sake?  And these wretches\ndare to call this a wicked opinion!  We do not at all doubt that if\nyou had been advised of this passage, you would have taken [will\ntake] care that such blasphemy be removed from the _Confutation._\n\nBut since it has been fully shown above that the opinion is wicked,\nthat we obtain the remission of sins on account of our works, we\nshall be briefer at this place.  For the prudent reader will easily\nbe able to reason thence that we do not merit the remission of sins\nby monastic works.  Therefore this blasphemy also is in no way to be\nendured which is read in\n\nThomas, that the monastic profession is equal to Baptism.  It is\nmadness to make human tradition, which has neither God's command nor\npromise, equal to the ordinance of Christ which has both the command\nand promise of God, which contains the covenant of grace and of\neternal life.\n\nSecondly.  Obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided the latter is\nnot impure, are, as exercises, adiaphora [in which we are not to look\nfor either sin or righteousness].  And for this reason the saints can\nuse these without impiety, just as Bernard, Franciscus, and other\nholy men used them.  And they used them on account of bodily\nadvantage, that they might have more leisure to teach and to perform\nother godly offices, and not that the works themselves are, by\nthemselves, works that justify or merit eternal life.  Finally they\nbelong to the class of which Paul says, 1 Tim. 4, 8: Bodily exercise\nprofiteth little.  And it is credible that in some places there are\nalso at present good men, engaged in the ministry of the Word, who\nuse these observances without wicked opinions [without hypocrisy and\nwith the understanding that they do not regard their monasticism as\nholiness].  But to hold that these observances are services on\naccount of which they are accounted just before God, and through\nwhich they merit eternal life, conflicts with the Gospel concerning\nthe righteousness of faith, which teaches that for Christ's sake\nrighteousness and eternal life are granted us.  It conflicts also\nwith the saying of Christ, Matt. 15, 9: In vain do they worship Me,\nteaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  It conflicts also\nwith this statement, Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.\nBut how can they affirm that they are services which God approves as\nrighteousness before Him when they have no testimony of God's Word?\n\nBut look at the impudence of the adversaries!  They not only teach\nthat these observances are justifying services, but they add that\nthese services are more perfect, i.e. meriting more the remission of\nsins and justification, than do other kinds of life [that they are\nstates of perfection, i.e., holier and higher states than the rest,\nsuch as marriage, rulership].  And here many false and pernicious\nopinions concur.  They imagine that they [are the most holy people\nwho] observe [not only] precepts and [but also] counsels [that is,\nthe superior counsels, which Scripture issues concerning exalted\ngifts, not by way of command but of advice].  Afterwards these\nliberal men, since they dream that they have the merits of\nsupererogation, sell these to others.  All these things are full of\npharisaic vanity.  For it is the height of impiety to hold that they\nsatisfy the Decalog in such a way that merits remain, while such\nprecepts as these are accusing all the saints: Thou shalt love the\nLord, thy God, with all shine heart, Deut. 6, 5. Likewise: Thou shalt\nnot covet, Rom. 7, 7. [For\n\nas the First Commandment of God (Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God,\nwith all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind ) is\nhigher than a man upon earth can comprehend as it is the highest\ntheology, from which all the prophets and all the apostles have drawn\nas from a spring their best and highest doctrines, yea, as it is such\nan exalted commandment, according to which alone all divine service,\nall honor to God, every offering, all thanksgiving in heaven and upon\nearth, must be regulated and judged, so that all divine service high\nand precious and holy though it appear if it be not in accordance\nwith this commandment, is nothing but husks and shells without a\nkernel, yea, nothing but filth and abomination before God; which\nexalted commandment no saint whatever has perfectly fulfilled, so\nthat even Noah and Abraham, David, Peter and Paul acknowledged\nthemselves imperfect and sinners: it is an unheard-of, pharisaic, yea,\nan actually diabolical pride for a sordid Barefooted monk or any\nsimilar godless hypocrite to say, yea, preach and teach, that he has\nobserved and fulfilled the holy high commandment so perfectly, and\naccording to the demands and will of God has done so many good works,\nthat merit even superabounds to him.  Yea, dear hypocrites, if the\nholy Ten Commandments and the exalted First Commandment of God were\nfulfilled as easily as the bread and remnants are put into the sack!\nThey are shameless hypocrites with whom the world is plagued in this\nlast time.] The prophet says, Ps. 116, 11: All men are liars, i.e.,\nnot thinking aright concerning God, not fearing God sufficiently, not\nbelieving Him sufficiently.  Therefore the monks falsely boast that\nin the observance of a monastic life the commandments are fulfilled,\nand more is done than what is commanded [that their good works and\nseveral hundredweights of superfluous, superabundant holiness remain\nin store for them].\n\nAgain, this also is false, namely, that monastic observances are\nworks of the counsels of the Gospel.  For the Gospel does not advise\nconcerning distinctions of clothing and meats and the renunciation of\nproperty.  These are human traditions, concerning all of which it has\nbeen said, 1 Cor. 8, 8: Meat commendeth us not to God.  Therefore\nthey are neither justifying services nor perfection; yea, when they\nare presented covered with these titles, they are mere doctrines of\ndemons.\n\nVirginity is recommended, but to those who have the gift, as has been\nsaid above.  It is, however, a most pernicious error to hold that\nevangelical perfection lies in human traditions.  For thus the monks\neven of the Mohammedans would be able to boast that they have\nevangelical perfection.  Neither does it lie in the observance of\nother things which are called adiaphora, but because the kingdom of\nGod is righteousness and life\n\nin hearts, Rom. 14, 17, perfection is growth in the fear of God, and\nin confidence in the mercy promised in Christ, and in devotion to\none's calling just as Paul also describes perfection 2 Cor. 3, 18: We\nare changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.\nHe does not say: We are continually receiving another hood, or other\nsandals, or other girdles.  It is deplorable that in the Church such\npharisaic, yea, Mohammedan expressions should be read and heard as,\nthat the perfection of the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ, which is\neternal life, should be placed in these foolish observances of\nvestments and of similar trifles.\n\nNow hear our Areopagites [excellent teachers] as to what an unworthy\ndeclaration they have recorded in the Confutation.  Thus they say: It\nhas been expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures that the monastic\nlife merits eternal life if maintained by a due observance, which by\nthe grace of God any monk can maintain; and, indeed, Christ has\npromised this as much more abundant to those who have left home or\nbrothers, etc., Matt. 19, 29. These are the words of the adversaries\nin which it is first said most impudently that it is expressed in the\nHoly Scriptures that a monastic life merits eternal life.  For where\ndo the Holy Scriptures speak of a monastic life!  Thus the\nadversaries plead their case thus men of no account quote the\nScriptures.  Although no one is ignorant that the monastic life has\nrecently been devised, nevertheless they cite the authority of\nScripture, and say, too, that this their decree has been expressly\ndeclared in the Scriptures.\n\nBesides, they dishonor Christ when they say that by monasticism men\nmerit eternal life.  God has ascribed not even to His Law the honor\nthat it should merit eternal life, as He clearly says in Ezek. 20, 25:\nI gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby\nthey should not live.  In the first place, it is certain that a\nmonastic life does not merit the remission of sins, but we obtain\nthis by faith freely, as has been said above.  Secondly, for Christ's\nsake, through mercy, eternal life is granted to those who by faith\nreceive remission, and do not set their own merits against God's\njudgment, as Bernard also says with very great force: It is necessary\nfirst of all to believe that you cannot have the remission of sine\nunless by God's indulgence.  Secondly, that you can have no good work\nwhatever, unless He has given also this.  Lastly, that you can merit\neternal life by no works, unless this also is given freely.  The rest\nthat follows to the same effect we have above recited.  Moreover,\nBernard adds at the end: Let no one deceive himself, because if he\nwill reflect well, he will undoubtedly find that with ten thousand he\ncannot meet Him [namely, God] who cometh against him with twenty\nthousand.  Since however, we do not\n\nmerit the remission of sins or eternal life by the works of the\ndivine Law, but it is necessary to seek the mercy promised in Christ,\nmuch less is this honor of meriting the remission of sins or eternal\nlife to be ascribed to monastic observances since they are mere human\ntraditions.\n\nThus those who teach that the monastic life merits the remission of\nsins or eternal life, and transfer the confidence due Christ to these\nfoolish observances, altogether suppress the Gospel concerning the\nfree remission of sins and the promised mercy in Christ that is to be\napprehended.  Instead of Christ they worship their own hoods and\ntheir own filth.  But since even they need mercy, they act wickedly\nin fabricating works of supererogation, and selling them [their\nsuperfluous claim upon heaven] to others.\n\nWe speak the more briefly concerning these subjects, because from\nthose things which we have said above concerning justification,\nconcerning repentance, concerning human traditions, it is\nsufficiently evident that monastic vows are not a price on account of\nwhich the remission of sins and life eternal are granted.  And since\nChrist calls traditions useless services, they are in no way\nevangelical perfection.\n\nBut the adversaries cunningly wish to appear as if they modify the\ncommon opinion concerning perfection.  They say that a monastic life\nis not perfection, but that it is a state in which to acquire\nperfection.  It is prettily phrased!  We remember that this\ncorrection is found in Gerson.  For it is apparent that prudent men,\noffended by these immoderate praises of monastic life, since they did\nnot venture to remove entirely from it the praise of perfection, have\nadded the correction that it is a state in which to acquire\nperfection.  If we follow this, monasticism will be no more a state\nof perfection than the life of a farmer or mechanic.  For these are\nalso states in which to acquire perfection.  For all men, in every\nvocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear of\nGod in faith, in love towards one's neighbor, and similar spiritual\nvirtues.\n\nIn the histories of the hermits there are examples of Anthony and of\nothers which make the various spheres of life equal.  It is written\nthat when Anthony asked God to show him what progress he was making\nin this kind of life, a certain shoemaker in the city of Alexandria\nwas indicated to him in a dream to whom he should be compared.  The\nnext day Anthony came into the city, and went to the shoemaker in\norder to ascertain his exercises and gifts, and, having conversed\nwith the man, heard nothing except that early in the morning he\nprayed in a few words for the entire state, and then attended to his\ntrade. Here Anthony learned that justification is not to be ascribed to\nthe kind of life which he had entered [what God had meant by the\nrevelation; for we are justified before God not through this or that\nlife, but alone through faith in Christ].\n\nBut although the adversaries now moderate their praises concerning\nperfection, yet they actually think otherwise.  For they sell merits,\nand apply them on behalf of others under the pretext that they are\nobserving precepts and counsels, hence they actually hold that they\nhave superfluous merits.  But what is it to arrogate to one's self\nperfection, if this is not?  Again, it has been laid down in the\n_Confutation_ that the monks endeavor to live more nearly in\naccordance with the Gospel.  Therefore it ascribes perfection to\nhuman traditions if they are living more nearly in accordance with\nthe Gospel by not having property, being unmarried, and obeying the\nrule in clothing, meats, and like trifles.\n\nAgain, the _Confutation_ says that the monks merit eternal life the\nmore abundantly, and quotes Scripture, Matt. 19, 29: Every one that\nhath forsaken houses, etc. Accordingly, here, too, it claims\nperfection also for factitious religious rites.  But this passage of\nScripture in no way favors monastic life.  For Christ does not mean\nthat to forsake parents, wife, brethren, is a work that must be done\nbecause it merits the remission of sins and eternal life.  Yea, such\na forsaking is cursed.  For if any one forsakes parents or wife in\norder by this very work to merit the remission of sins or eternal\nlife, this is done with dishonor to Christ.\n\nThere is, moreover, a twofold forsaking.  One occurs without a call,\nwithout God's command; this Christ does not approve, Matt. 15, 9. For\nthe works chosen by us are useless services.  But that Christ does\nnot approve this flight appears the more clearly from the fact that\nHe speaks of forsaking wife and children.  We know, however, that\nGod's commandment forbids the forsaking of wife and children.  The\nforsaking which occurs by God's command is of a different kind,\nnamely, when power or tyranny compels us either to depart or to deny\nthe Gospel.  Here we have the command that we should rather bear\ninjury, that we should rather suffer not only wealth, wife, and\nchildren, but even life, to be taken from us.  This forsaking Christ\napproves, and accordingly He adds: For the Gospel's sake, Mark 10, 29,\nin order to signify that He is speaking not of those who do injury\nto wife and children, but who bear injury on account of the\nconfession of the Gospel.  For the Gospel's sake we ought even to\nforsake our body.  Here it would be ridiculous to hold that it would\nbe a service to God to kill one's self, and without God's command to\nleave the body.  So, too, it is ridiculous to hold that it is a service\nto God without God's command to forsake possessions, friends, wife,\nchildren.\n\nTherefore it is evident that they wickedly distort Christ's word to a\nmonastic life.  Unless perhaps the declaration that they \"receive a\nhundredfold in this life\" be in place here.  For very many become\nmonks not on account of the Gospel but on account of sumptuous living\nand idleness, who find the most ample riches instead of slender\npatrimonies.  But as the entire subject of monasticism is full of\nshams, so, by a false pretext they quote testimonies of Scripture,\nand as a consequence they sin doubly, i.e., they deceive men, and\nthat, too, under the pretext of the divine name.\n\nAnother passage is also cited concerning perfection Matt. 19, 21: If\nthou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the\npoor, and come and follow Me.  This passage has exercised many, who\nhave imagined that it is perfection to cast away possessions and the\ncontrol of property.  Let us allow the philosophers to extol\nAristippus, who cast a great weight of gold into the sea.  [Cynics\nlike Diogenes, who would have no house, but lay in a tub, may commend\nsuch heathenish holiness.] Such examples pertain in no way to\nChristian perfection.  [Christian holiness consists in much higher\nmatters than such hypocrisy.] The division, control and possession of\nproperty are civil ordinances, approved by God's Word in the\ncommandment, Ex. 20, 15: Thou shalt not steal.  The abandonment of\nproperty has no command or advice in the Scriptures.  For evangelical\npoverty does not consist in the abandonment of property, but in not\nbeing avaricious, in not trusting in wealth, just as David was poor\nin a most wealthy kingdom.\n\nTherefore, since the abandonment of property is merely a human\ntradition, it is a useless service.  Excessive also are the praises\nin the Extravagant, which says that the abdication of the ownership\nof all things for God's sake is meritorious and holy, and a way of\nperfection.  And it is very dangerous to extol with such excessive\npraises a matter conflicting with political order.  [When\ninexperienced people hear such commendations, they conclude that it\nis unchristian to hold property whence many errors and seditions\nfollow, through such commendations Muentzer was deceived, and thereby\nmany Anabaptists were led astray.] But [they say] Christ here speaks\nof perfection.  Yea, they do violence to the text who quote it\nmutilated.  Perfection is in that which Christ adds: Follow Me.  An\nexample of obedience in one's calling is here presented.  And as\ncallings are unlike [one is called to rulership, a second to be\nfather of a family, a third to be a preacher], so this calling does\nnot belong to all, but pertains properly to\n\nthat person with whom Christ there speaks, just as the call of David\nto the kingdom, and of Abraham to slay his son, are not to be\nimitated by us.  Callings are personal, just as matters of business\nthemselves vary with times and persons; but the example of obedience\nis general.  Perfection would have belonged to that young man if he\nhad believed and obeyed this vocation.  Thus perfection with us is\nthat every one with true faith should obey his own calling.  [Not\nthat I should undertake a strange calling for which I have not the\ncommission or command of God.]\n\nThirdly.  In monastic vows chastity is promised.  We have said above,\nhowever, concerning the marriage of priests, that the law of nature\n[or of God] in men cannot be removed by vows or enactments.  And as\nall do not have the gift of continence, many because of weakness are\nunsuccessfully continent.  Neither, indeed, can any vows or any\nenactments abolish the command of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 7, 2: To\navoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.  Therefore this\nvow is not lawful in those who do not have the gift of continence,\nbut who are polluted on account of weakness.  Concerning this entire\ntopic enough has been said above, in regard to which indeed it is\nstrange, since the dangers and scandals are occurring before men's\neyes that the adversaries still defend their traditions contrary to\nthe manifest command of God.  Neither does the voice of Christ move\nthem, who chides the Pharisees, Matt. 23, 13 f., who had made\ntraditions contrary to God's command.\n\nFourthly.  Those who live in monasteries are released from their vows\nby such godless ceremonies as of the Mass applied on behalf of the\ndead for the sake of gain, the worship of saints, in which the fault\nis twofold, both that the saints are put in Christ's place, and that\nthey are wickedly worshiped, just as the Dominicasters invented the\nrosary of the Blessed Virgin, which is mere babbling not less foolish\nthan it is wicked, and nourishes the most vain presumption.  Then,\ntoo, these very impieties are applied only for the sake of gain.\nLikewise, they neither hear nor teach the Gospel concerning the free\nremission of sins for Christ's sake, concerning the righteousness of\nfaith, concerning true repentance, concerning works which have God's\ncommand.  But they are occupied either in philosophic discussions or\nin the handing down of ceremonies that obscure Christ.\n\nWe will not here speak of the entire service of ceremonies, of the\nlessons, singing, and similar things, which could be tolerated if\nthey [were regulated as regards number, and if they] would be\nregarded as exercises, after the manner of lessons in the schools\n[and preaching], whose design is to teach the hearers, and, while\nteaching, to move some to fear or faith.\n\nBut now they feign that these ceremonies are services of God, which\nmerit the remission of sins for themselves and for others.  For on\nthis account they increase these ceremonies.  But if they would\nundertake them in order to teach and exhort the hearers, brief and\npointed lessons would be of more profit than these infinite babblings.\nThus the entire monastic life is full of hypocrisy and false\nopinions [against the First and Second Commandments, against Christ].\nTo all these this danger also is added, that those who are in these\nfraternities are compelled to assent to those persecuting the truth.\nThere are, therefore, many important and forcible reasons which free\ngood men from the obligation to this kind of life.\n\nLastly, the canons themselves release many who either without\njudgment [before they have attained a proper age] have made vows when\nenticed by the tricks of the monks, or have made vows under\ncompulsion by friends.  Such vows not even the canons declare to be\nvows.  From all these considerations it is apparent that there are\nvery many reasons which teach that monastic vows such as have\nhitherto been made are not vows; and for this reason a sphere of life\nfull of hypocrisy and false opinions can be safely abandoned.\n\nHere they present an objection derived from the Law concerning the\nNazarites, Num. 6, 2f.  But the Nazarites did not take upon\nthemselves their vows with the opinions which, we have hitherto said\nwe censure in the vows of the monks.  The rite of the Nazarites was\nan exercise [a bodily exercise with fasting and certain kinds of\nfood] or declaration of faith before men, and did not merit the\nremission of sins before God, did not justify before God.  [For they\nsought this elsewhere, namely, in the promise of the blessed Seed.]\nAgain, just as circumcision or the slaying of victims would not be a\nservice of God now, so the rite of the Nazarites ought not to be\npresented now as a service, but it ought to be judged simply as an\nadiaphoron.  It is not right to compare monasticism, devised without\nGod's Word, as a service which should merit the remission of sins and\njustification, with the rite of the Nazarites, which had God's Word,\nand was not taught for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins,\nbut to be an outward exercise, just as other ceremonies of the Law.\nThe same can be said concerning other ceremonies prescribed in the\nLaw.\n\nThe Rechabites also are cited, who did not have any possessions, and\ndid not drink wine, as Jeremiah writes, chap. 35, 6f.  Yea, truly,\nthe example of the Rechabites accords beautifully with our monks,\nwhose monasteries excel the palaces of kings, and who live most\nsumptuously!  And the Rechabites, in their poverty of all things,\nwere nevertheless married.  Our monks, although abounding in all\nvoluptuousness, profess celibacy.\n\nBesides, examples ought to be interpreted according to the rule, i.e.,\naccording to certain and clear passages of Scripture, not contrary\nto the rule, that is, contrary to the Scriptures.  It is very certain,\nhowever, that our observances do not merit the remission of sins or\njustification.  Therefore, when the Rechabites are praised, it is\nnecessary [it is certain] that these have observed their custom, not\nbecause they believed that by this they merited remission of sins, or\nthat the work was itself a justifying service, or one on account of\nwhich they obtained eternal life, instead of, by God's mercy, for the\nsake of the promised Seed.  But because they had the command of their\nparents, their obedience is praised, concerning which there is the\ncommandment of God: Honor thy father and mother.\n\nThen, too, the custom had a particular purpose: Because they were\nforeigners, not Israelites, it is apparent that their father wished\nto distinguish them by certain marks from their countrymen, so that\nthey might not relapse into the impiety of their countrymen.  He\nwished by these marks to admonish them of the [fear of God, the]\ndoctrine of faith and immortality.  Such an end is lawful.  But for\nmonasticism far different ends are taught.  They feign that the works\nof monasticism are a service, they feign that they merit the\nremission of sins and justification.  The example of the Rechabites\nis therefore unlike monasticism; to omit here other evils which\ninhere in monasticism at present.\n\nThey cite also from 1 Tim. 5, 11ff. concerning widows, who, as they\nserved the Church, were supported at the public expense, where it is\nsaid: They will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off\ntheir first faith.  First, let us suppose that the Apostle is here\nspeaking of vows [which, however, he is not doing]; still this\npassage will not favor monastic vows, which are made concerning\ngodless services, and in this opinion that they merit the remission\nof sins and justification.  For Paul with ringing voice condemns all\nservices, all laws, all works, if they are observed in order to merit\nthe remission of sins, or that, on account of them instead of through\nmercy on account of Christ we obtain remission of sins.  On this\naccount the vows of widows, if there were any, must have been unlike\nmonastic vows.\n\nBesides, if the adversaries do not cease to misapply the passage to\nvows, the prohibition that no widow be selected who is less than\nsixty years, 1 Tim. 5, 9, must be misapplied in the same way.  Thus\nvows made before this age will be of no account.  But the Church did\nnot yet know these vows. Therefore Paul condemns widows, not because\nthey marry, for he commands the younger to marry; but because, when\nsupported at the public expense, they became wanton, and thus cast\noff faith. He calls this first faith, clearly not in a monastic vow,\nbut in Christianity [of their Baptism, their Christian duty, their\nChristianity]. And in this sense he understands faith in the same\nchapter, v. 8: If any one provide not for his own, and specially for\nthose of his own house, he hath denied the faith. For he speaks\notherwise of faith than the sophists. He does not ascribe faith to\nthose who have mortal sin. He, accordingly, says that those cast off\nfaith who do not care for their relatives. And in the same way he\nsays that wanton women cast off faith.\n\nWe have recounted some of our reasons and, in passing, have explained\naway the objections urged by the adversaries.  And we have collected\nthese matters, not only on account of the adversaries, but much more\non account of godly minds, that they may have in view the reasons why\nthey ought to disapprove of hypocrisy and fictitious monastic\nservices, all of which indeed this one saying of Christ annuls, which\nreads, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me, teaching for\ndoctrines the commandments of men.  Therefore the vows themselves and\nthe observances of meats, lessons, chants, vestments, sandals,\ngirdles are useless services in God's sight.  And all godly minds\nshould certainly know that the opinion is simply pharisaic and\ncondemned that these observances merit the remission of sins; that on\naccount of them we are accounted righteous, that on account of them,\nand not through mercy on account of Christ, we obtain eternal life.\nAnd the holy men who have lived in these kinds of life must\nnecessarily have learned, confidence in such observance having been\nrejected, that they had the remission of sins freely, that for\nChrist's sake through mercy they would obtain eternal life, and not\nfor the sake of these services [therefore godly persons who were\nsaved and continued to live in monastic life had finally come to this,\nnamely, that they despaired of their monastic life, despised all\ntheir works as dung, condemned all their hypocritical service of God,\nand held fast to the promise of grace in Christ, as in the example of\nSt. Bernard, saying, _Perdite vixi_, I have lived in a sinful way],\nbecause God only approves services instituted by His Word, which\nservices avail when used in faith.\n\n\n\n\nPart 36\n\n\nArticle XXVIII (XIV): _Of Ecclesiastical Power._\n\nHere the adversaries cry out violently concerning the privileges and\nimmunities of the ecclesiastical estate, and they add the peroration:\nAll things are vain which are presented in the present article\nagainst the immunity of the churches and priests.  This is mere\ncalumny; for in this article we have disputed concerning other things.\nBesides, we have frequently testified that we do not find fault\nwith political ordinances, and the gifts and privileges granted by\nprinces.\n\nBut would that the adversaries would hear, on the other hand, the\ncomplaints of the churches and of godly minds!  The adversaries\ncourageously guard their own dignities and wealth; meanwhile, they\nneglect the condition of the churches; they do not care that the\nchurches are rightly taught, and that the Sacraments are duly\nadministered.  To the priesthood they admit all kinds of persons\nindiscriminately.  [They ordain rude asses; thus the Christian\ndoctrine perished, because the Church was not supplied with efficient\npreachers.] Afterwards they impose intolerable burdens, as though\nthey were delighted with the destruction of their fellowmen, they\ndemand that their traditions be observed far more accurately than the\nGospel.  Now, in the most important and difficult controversies,\nconcerning which the people urgently desire to be taught, in order\nthat they may have something certain which they may follow, they do\nnot release the minds which are most severely tortured with doubt,\nthey only call to arms.  Besides, in manifest matters [against\nmanifest truth] they present decrees written in blood, which threaten\nhorrible punishments to men unless they act clearly contrary to God's\ncommand.  Here, on the other hand, you ought to see the tears of the\npoor, and hear the pitiable complaints of many good men, which God\nundoubtedly considers and regards, to whom one day you will render an\naccount of your stewardship.\n\nBut although in the Confession we have in this article embraced\nvarious topics, the adversaries make no reply [act in true popish\nfashion], except that the bishops have the power of rule and coercive\ncorrection, in order to direct their subjects to the goal of eternal\nblessedness; and that the power of ruling requires the power to judge,\nto define, to distinguish and fix those things which are serviceable\nor conduce to the aforementioned end.  These are the words of the\n_Confutation_, in which the adversaries teach us [but do not prove]\nthat the bishops have the authority to frame laws [without the\nauthority of the Gospel] useful for obtaining eternal life.  The\ncontroversy is concerning this article.\n\n[Regarding this matter we submit the following:] But we must retain\nin the Church this doctrine, namely, that we receive the remission of\nsins freely for Christ's sake, by faith.  We must also retain this\ndoctrine, namely, that human traditions are useless services, and\ntherefore neither sin nor righteousness should be placed in meat\ndrink, clothing and like things, the use of which Christ wished to be\nleft free, since He says, Matt. 15, 11: Not that which goeth into the\nmouth defileth the man; and Paul, Rom. 14, 17: The kingdom of God is\nnot meat and drink.  Therefore the bishops have no right to frame\ntraditions in addition to the Gospel, that they may merit the\nremission of sins, that they may be services which God is to approve\nas righteousness and which burden consciences, as though it were a\nsin to omit them.  All this is taught by that one passage in Acts, 15,\n9ff., where the apostles say [Peter says] that hearts are purified\nby faith.  And then they prohibit the imposing of a yoke, and show\nhow great a danger this is, and enlarge upon the sin of those who\nburden the Church.  Why tempt ye God they say.  By this thunderbolt\nour adversaries are in no way terrified, who defend by violence\ntraditions and godless opinions.\n\nFor above they have also condemned Article XV, in which we have\nstated that traditions do not merit the remission of sins, and they\nhere say that traditions conduce to eternal life.  Do they merit the\nremission of sins?  Are they services which God approves as\nrighteousness?  Do they quicken hearts!  Paul to the Colossians, 2,\n20ff., says that traditions do not profit with respect to eternal\nrighteousness and eternal life; for the reason that food, drink,\nclothing and the like are things that perish with the using.  But\neternal life [which begins in this life inwardly by faith] is wrought\nin the heart by eternal things, i.e., by the Word of God and the Holy\nGhost.  Therefore let the adversaries explain how traditions conduce\nto eternal life.\n\nSince, however, the Gospel clearly testifies that traditions ought\nnot to be imposed upon the Church in order to merit the remission of\nsins; in order to be services which God shall approve as\nrighteousness; in order to burden consciences, so that to omit them\nis to be accounted a sin, the adversaries will never be able to show\nthat the bishops have the power to institute such services.\n\nBesides, we have declared in the Confession what power the Gospel\nascribes to bishops.  Those who are now bishops do not perform the\nduties of bishops according to the Gospel although, indeed, they may\nbe bishops according to canonical polity, which we do not censure.\nBut we are speaking of a bishop according to the Gospel.  And we are\npleased with the ancient division of power into power of the order\nand power of jurisdiction [that is the administration of the\nSacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction].  Therefore\nthe bishop has the power of the order, i.e., the ministry of the Word\nand Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i.e., the\nauthority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to\nabsolve them if they are converted and seek absolution.  But their\npower is not to be tyrannical, i.e., without a fixed law; nor regal,\ni.e., above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of\nGod, according to which they ought to teach and according to which\nthey ought to exercise their jurisdiction.  Therefore, even though\nthey should have some jurisdiction, it does not follow that they are\nable to institute new services.  For services pertain in no way to\njurisdiction.  And they have the Word, they have the command, how far\nthey ought to exercise jurisdiction, namely, if any one would do\nanything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ.\n[For the Gospel does not set up a rule independently of the Gospel;\nthat is quite clear and certain.]\n\nAlthough in the Confession we also have added how far it is lawful\nfor them to frame traditions, namely, not as necessary services, but\nso that there may be order in the Church, for the sake of\ntranquillity.  And these traditions ought not to cast snares upon\nconsciences, as though to enjoin necessary services; as Paul teaches\nwhen he says, Gal. 5, 1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty\nwherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with\nthe yoke of bondage.  The use of such ordinances ought therefore to\nbe left free, provided that offenses be avoided, and that they be not\njudged to be necessary services; just as the apostles themselves\nordained [for the sake of good discipline] very many things which\nhave been changed with time.  Neither did they hand them down in such\na way that it would not be permitted to change them.  For they did\nnot dissent from their own writings, in which they greatly labor lest\nthe Church be burdened with the opinion that human rites are\nnecessary services.\n\nThis is the simple mode of interpreting traditions, namely, that we\nunderstand them not as necessary services, and nevertheless, for the\nsake of avoiding offenses, we should observe them in the proper place.\nAnd thus many learned and great men in the Church have held.  Nor\ndo we see what can be said against this.  For it is certain that the\nexpression Luke 10, 16: He that heareth you heareth Me, does not\nspeak of traditions, but is chiefly directed against traditions.  For\nit is not a _mandatum cum libera_ ( a bestowal of unlimited\nauthority), as they call it, but it is a _cautio de rato_ (a caution\nconcerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the special\ncommand [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order,\nnamely, not to preach their own word, but God's Word and the Gospel],\ni.e., the testimony given to the apostles that we believe them with\nrespect to the word of another, not their own.  For Christ wishes to\nassure us, as was necessary, that we should know that the Word\ndelivered by men is efficacious, and that no other word from heaven\nought to be sought.  He that heareth you heareth Me, cannot be\nunderstood of traditions.  For Christ requires that they teach in\nsuch a way that [by their mouth] He Himself be heard, because He says:\nHe heareth Me.  Therefore He wishes His own voice, His own Word, to\nbe heard, not human traditions.  Thus a saying which is most\nespecially in our favor, and contains the most important consolation\nand doctrine, these stupid men pervert to the most trifling matters,\nthe distinctions of food, vestments, and the like.\n\nThey quote also Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you.\nThis passage requires obedience to the Gospel.  For it does not\nestablish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel.  Neither\nshould the bishops frame traditions contrary to the Gospel, or\ninterpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel.  And when they do\nthis, obedience is prohibited, according to Gal. 1, 9: If any man\npreach any other gospel, let him be accursed.\n\nWe make the same reply to Matt. 23, 3: Whatsoever they bid you\nobserve, that observe, because evidently a universal command is not\ngiven that we should receive all things [even contrary to God's\ncommand and Word], since Scripture elsewhere, Acts 5, 29, bids us\nobey God rather than men.  When, therefore they teach wicked things,\nthey are not to be heard.  But these are wicked things, namely, that\nhuman traditions are services of God that they are necessary services,\nthat they merit the remission of sins and eternal life.\n\nThey present, as an objection, the public offenses and commotions\nwhich have arisen under pretext of our doctrine.  To these we briefly\nreply.  If all the scandals be brought together, still the one\narticle concerning the remission of sins, that for Christ's sake\nthrough faith we freely obtain the remission of sins, brings so much\ngood as to hide all evils.  And this, in the beginning, gained for\nLuther not only our favor, but also, that of many who are now\ncontending against us.  \"For former favor ceases, and mortals are\nforgetful,\" says Pindar.  Nevertheless, we neither desire to desert\ntruth that is necessary to the Church, nor can we assent to the\nadversaries in condemning it.  For we ought to obey God rather than\nmen.  Those who in the beginning condemned manifest truth, and are\nnow persecuting it with the greatest cruelty, will give an account\nfor the schism that has been occasioned.  Then, too, are there no\nscandals among the adversaries?  How much evil is there in the\nsacrilegious profanation of the Mass applied to gain!  How great\ndisgrace in celibacy!  But let us omit a comparison.  This is what we\nhare replied to the _Confutation_ for the time being.  Now we leave\nit to the judgment of all the godly whether the adversaries are right\nin boasting that they have actually refuted our Concession from the\nScriptures.\n\n\n\n\nPart 37\n\n\n_THE END._\n\n[As regards the slander and complaint of the adversaries at the end\nof the _Confutation_, namely, that this doctrine is causing\ndisobedience and other scandals, this is unjustly imputed to our\ndoctrine.  For it is evident that by this doctrine the authority of\nmagistrates is most highly praised.  Moreover, it is well known that\nin those localities where this doctrine is preached, the magistrates\nhave hitherto by the grace of God, been treated with all respect by\nthe subjects.\n\nBut as to the want of unity and dissension in the Church, it is well\nknown how these matters first happened, and who have caused the\ndivision, namely, the sellers of indulgences, who shamelessly\npreached intolerable lies, and afterwards condemned Luther for not\napproving of those lies, and besides, they again and again excited\nmore controversies, so that Luther was induced to attack many other\nerrors.  But since our opponents would not tolerate the truth, and\ndared to promote manifest errors by force, it is easy to judge who is\nguilty of the schism.  Surely, all the world, all wisdom, all power\nought to yield to Christ and His holy Word.  But the devil is the\nenemy of God, and therefore rouses all his might against Christ, to\nextinguish and suppress the Word of God.  Therefore the devil with\nhis members, setting himself against the Word of God, is the cause of\nthe schism and want of unity.  For we have most zealously sought\npeace, and still most eagerly desire it, provided only we are not\nforced to blaspheme and deny Christ.  For God, the discerner of all\nmen's hearts, is our witness that we do not delight and have no joy\nin this awful disunion.  On the other hand, our adversaries have so\nfar not been willing to conclude peace without stipulating that we\nmust abandon the saving doctrine of the forgiveness of sin by Christ\nwithout our merit; though Christ would be most foully blasphemed\nthereby.\n\nAnd although, as is the custom of the world it cannot be but that\noffenses have occurred in this schism through malice and by imprudent\npeople; for the devil causes such offenses, to disgrace the Gospel,\nyet all this is of no account in view of the great comfort which this\nteaching has brought men, that for Christ's sake, without our merit,\nwe have forgiveness of sins and a gracious God.  Again, that men have\nbeen instructed that forsaking secular estates and magistracies is\nnot a divine worship, but that such estates and magistracies are\npleasing to God and to be engaged in them is a real holy work and\ndivine service.\n\nIf we also were to narrate the offenses of the adversaries, which,\nindeed, we have no desire to do, it would be a terrible list: what an\nabominable, blasphemous fair the adversaries have made of the Mass;\nwhat unchaste living has been instituted by their celibacy; how the\nPopes have for more than 400 years been engaged in wars against the\nemperors, have forgotten the Gospel, and only sought to be emperors\nthemselves, and to bring all Italy into their power how they have\njuggled the possessions of the Church; how through their neglect many\nfalse teachings and forms of worship have been set up by the monks.\nIs not their worship of the saints manifest pagan idolatry?  All\ntheir writers do not say one word concerning faith in Christ, by\nwhich forgiveness of sin is obtained; the highest degree of holiness\nthey ascribe to human traditions, it is chiefly of these that they\nwrite and preach.  Moreover this, too, ought to be numbered with\ntheir offenses, that they clearly reveal what sort of a spirit is in\nthem, because they are now putting to death so many innocent, pious\npeople on account of Christian doctrine.  But we do not now wish to\nsay more concerning this; for these matters should be decided in\naccordance with God's Word, regardless of the offenses on either aide.\n\nWe hope that all God-fearing men will sufficiently see from this\nwriting of ours that ours is the Christian doctrine and comforting\nand salutary to all godly men.  Accordingly, we pray God to extend\nHis grace to the end that His holy Gospel may be known and honored by\nall, for His glory, and for the peace, unity, and salvation of all of\nus.  Regarding all these articles we offer to make further statements\nif required.]","title":"The Apology of the Augsburg Confession","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":111012}