Article III: _Of Christ._
The Third Article the adversaries approve, in which we confess that
there are in Christ two natures, namely, a human nature, assumed by
the Word into the unity of His person; and that the same Christ
suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us; and that He was
raised again to reign, and to justify and sanctify believers, etc.,
according to the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Article IV (II): _Of Justification._
In the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and, below, in the Twentieth Article,
they condemn us, for teaching that men obtain remission of sins, not
because of their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, through
faith in Christ. [They reject quite stubbornly both these statements.
] For they condemn us both for denying that men obtain remission of
sins because of their own merits, and for affirming that, through
faith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ are
justified. But since in this controversy the chief topic of
Christian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illumines
and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for
the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and
alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge
of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings
necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we ask
His Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to matters
of such importance. For since the adversaries understand neither
what the remission of sins, nor what faith, nor what grace, nor what
righteousness is, they sadly corrupt this topic, and obscure the
glory and benefits of Christ and rob devout consciences of the
consolations offered in Christ. But that we may strengthen the
position of our Confession, and also remove the charges which the
adversaries advance against us, certain things are to be premised in
the beginning, in order that the sources of both kinds of doctrine, i.
e., both that of our adversaries and our own, may be known.
All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics,
the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law,
and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in
the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for
His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or
when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He
has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life
eternal. Moreover, in this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten
Commandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the
ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human
reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the
same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees
with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they
seek the remission of sins and justification. Now, the Decalog
requires not only outward civil works, which reason can in some way
produce, but it also requires other things placed far above reason,
namely, truly to fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God,
truly to be convinced that God hears us, and to expect the aid of God
in death and in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience to
God, in death and all afflictions, so that we may not flee from these,
or refuse them when God imposes them.
Here the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a
righteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides
that without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things.
For, as long as the human mind is at ease, and does not feel the
wrath or judgment of God, it can imagine that it wishes to love God,
that it wishes to do good for God's sake. [But it is sheer hypocrisy.
] In this manner they teach that men merit the remission of sins by
doing what is in them, i.e., if reason, grieving over sin, elicit an
act of love to God, or for God's sake be active in that which is good.
And because this opinion naturally flatters men, it has brought
forth and multiplied in the Church many services, monastic vows,
abuses of the mass; and, with this opinion the one has, in the course
of time, devised this act of worship and observances, the other that.
And in order that they might nourish and increase confidence in such
works, they have affirmed that God necessarily gives grace to one
thus working, by the necessity not of constraint, but of immutability
[not that He is constrained, but that this is the order which God
will not transgress or alter].
In this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which it
would be tedious to enumerate. Let the discreet reader think only of
this: If this be Christian righteousness, what difference is there
between philosophy and the doctrine of Christ? If we merit the
remission of sins by these elicit acts [that spring from our mind],
of what benefit is Christ? If we can be justified by reason and the
works of reason, wherefore is there need of Christ or regeneration
[as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]? And from these opinions the
matter has now come to such a pass that many ridicule us because we
teach that an other than the philosophic righteousness must be sought
after. [Alas! it has come to this, that even great theologians at
Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any other godliness or
righteousness (although every letter and syllable in Paul teaches
otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach. And although
we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought to ridicule
it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.] We
have heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead
of a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard
a great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and
preached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish
way to preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things
are true which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the
adversaries be true, the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a
fine new Bible]. For Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so
learnedly that nothing further concerning this need be demanded. We
see books extant in which certain sayings of Christ are compared with
the sayings of Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come
for the purpose of delivering certain laws through which we might
merit the remission of sins, as though we did not receive this
gratuitously, because of His merits. Therefore, if we here receive
the doctrine of the adversaries, that by the works of reason we merit
the remission of sins and justification, there will be no difference
between philosophic, or certainly pharisaic, and Christian
righteousness.
Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a
knowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him that
it is His merit that a habit is given us, or, as they say, _prima
gratia_, "first grace," which they understand as a habit, inclining
us the more readily to love God; yet what they ascribe to this habit
is of little importance [is a feeble, paltry, small, poor operation,
that would be ascribed to Christ], because they imagine that the acts
of the will are of the same kind before and after this habit. They
imagine that the will can love God; but nevertheless this habit
stimulates it to do the same the more cheerfully. And they bid us
first merit this habit by preceding merits; then they bid us merit by
the works of the Law an increase of this habit and life eternal.
Thus they bury Christ, so that men may not avail themselves of Him as
a Mediator, and believe that for His sake they freely receive
remission of sins and reconciliation, but may dream that by their own
fulfilment of the Law they merit the remission of sins, and that by
their own fulfilment of the Law they are accounted righteous before
God; while, nevertheless, the Law is never satisfied, since reason
does nothing except certain civil works, and, in the mean time
neither [in the heart] fears God, nor truly believes that God cares
for it. And although they speak of this habit, yet, without the
righteousness of faith, neither the love of God can exist in man, nor
can it be understood what the love of God is.
Their feigning a distinction between _meritum congrui_ and _meritum
condigni_ [due merit and true, complete merit] is only an artifice in
order not to appear openly to Pelagianize, For, if God necessarily
gives grace for the _meritum congrui_ [due merit], it is no longer
_meritum congrui_, but _meritum condigni_ [a true duty and complete
merit]. But they do not know what they are saying. After this habit
of love [is there], they imagine that man can acquire _merit de
condigno_. And yet they bid us doubt whether there be a habit
present. How, therefore, do they know whether they acquire merit _de
congruo_ or _de condigno_ [in full, or half]? But this whole matter
was fabricated by idle men [But, good God! these are mere inane ideas
and dreams of idle, wretched, inexperienced men who do not much
reduce the Bible to practise], who did not know how the remission of
sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of
conscience, trust in works is driven out of us. Secure hypocrites
always judge that they acquire _merit de condigno_, whether the habit
be present or be not present, because men naturally trust in their
own righteousness, but terrified consciences waver and hesitate, and
then seek and accumulate other works in order to find rest. Such
consciences never think that they acquire merit _de condigno_, and
they rush into despair unless they hear, in addition to the doctrine
of the Law, the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission of sins
and the righteousness of faith. [Thus some stories are told that
when the Barefooted monks had in vain praised their order and good
works to some good consciences in the hour of death, they at last had
to be silent concerning their order and St. Franciscus, and to say:
"Dear man, Christ has died for you." This revived and refreshed in
trouble, and alone gave peace and comfort.]
Thus the adversaries teach nothing but the righteousness of reason,
or certainly of the Law, upon which they look just as the Jews upon
the veiled face of Moses, and, in secure hypocrites who think that
they satisfy the Law, they excite presumption and empty confidence in
works [they place men on a sand foundation, their own works] and
contempt of the grace of Christ. On the contrary, they drive timid
consciences to despair, which, laboring with doubt, never can
experience what faith is, and how efficacious it is; thus, at last
they utterly despair.
Now, we think concerning the righteousness of reason thus, namely,
that God requires it, and that, because of God's commandment, the
honorable works which the Decalog commands must necessarily be
performed, according to the passage Gal. 3, 24: The Law was our
schoolmaster; likewise 1 Tim. 1, 9: The Law is made for the ungodly.
For God wishes those who are carnal [gross sinners] to be restrained
by civil discipline, and to maintain this, He has given laws, letters,
doctrine, magistrates, penalties. And this righteousness reason, by
its own strength, can, to a certain extent, work, although it is
often overcome by natural weakness, and by the devil impelling it to
manifest crimes. Now, although we cheerfully assign this
righteousness of reason the praises that are due it (for this corrupt
nature has no greater good [in this life and in a worldly nature,
nothing is ever better than uprightness and virtue], and Aristotle
says aright: Neither the evening star nor the morning star is more
beautiful than righteousness, and God also honors it with bodily
rewards), yet it ought not to be praised with reproach to Christ.
For it is false [I thus conclude, and am certain that it is a fiction,
and not true] that we merit the remission of sins by our works.
False also is this, that men are accounted righteous before God
because of the righteousness of reason [works and external piety].
False also is this that reason, by its own strength, is able to love
God above all things, and to fulfil God's Law, namely, truly to fear
God to be truly confident that God hears prayer, to be willing to
obey God in death and other dispensations of God, not to covet what
belongs to others, etc.; although reason can work civil works.
False also and dishonoring Christ is this, that men do not sin who,
without grace, do the commandments of God [who keep the commandments
of God merely in an external manner, without the Spirit and grace in
their hearts]. We have testimonies for this our belief, not only
from the Scriptures, but also from the Fathers. For in opposition to
the Pelagians, Augustine contends at great length that grace is not
given because of our merits. And in _De Natura et Gratia_ he says:
If natural ability, through the free will, suffice both for learning
to know how one ought to live and for living aright, then Christ has
died in vain, then the offense of the Cross is made void. Why may I
not also here cry out? Yea I will cry out, and, with Christian grief,
will chide them: Christ has become of no effect unto you whosoever
of you are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal. 5, 4;
cf. 2, 21. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and
going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of
the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Rom. 10 3. 4.
And John 8, 36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed. Therefore by reason we cannot be freed from sins and
merit the remission of sins. And in John 3, 5 it is written: Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. But if it is necessary to be born again of the Holy
Ghost the righteousness of reason does not justify us before God, and
does not fulfil the Law, Rom. 3, 23: All have come short of the glory
of God, i.e., are destitute of the wisdom and righteousness of God,
which acknowledges and glorifies God. Likewise Rom. 8, 7. 8: The
carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law
of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh
cannot please God. These testimonies are so manifest that, to use
the words of Augustine which he employed in this case, they do not
need an acute understanding, but only an attentive hearer. If the
carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh certainly does not love
God; if it cannot be subject to the Law of God, it cannot love God.
If the carnal mind is enmity against God, the flesh sins even when we
do external civil works. If it cannot be subject to the Law of God,
it certainly sins even when, according to human judgment, it
possesses deeds that are excellent and worthy of praise. The
adversaries consider only the precepts of the Second Table which
contain civil righteousness that reason understands. Content with
this, they think that they satisfy the Law of God. In the mean time
they do not see the First Table which commands that we love God, that
we declare as certain that God is angry with sin, that we truly fear
God, that we declare as certain that God hears prayer. But the human
heart without the Holy Ghost either in security despises God's
judgment, or in punishment flees from, and hates, God when He judges.
Therefore it does not obey the First Table. Since, therefore,
contempt of God, and doubt concerning the Word of God and concerning
the threats and promises, inhere in human nature, men truly sin, even
when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do
them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin. For such persons perform their works with contempt
of God, just as Epicurus does not believe that God cares for him, or
that he is regarded or heard by God. This contempt vitiates works
seemingly virtuous, because God judges the heart.
Lastly, it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who
are under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love,
which springs from their mind, since it is impossible to love God,
unless the remission of sins be apprehended first by faith. For the
heart, truly feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He be
shown to have been reconciled. As long as He terrifies us, and seems
to cast us into eternal death, human nature is not able to take
courage, so as to love a wrathful, judging, and punishing God [poor,
weak nature must lose heart and courage, and must tremble before such
great wrath, which so fearfully terrifies and punishes, and can never
feel a spark of love before God Himself comforts]. It is easy for
idle men to feign such dreams concerning love as, that a person
guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they do
not feel what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in agony of
conscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences the
emptiness of these philosophical speculations. Paul says, Rom. 4,15:
The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the
remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies
consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience
terrified by the Law flees from the judgment of God. Therefore they
err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the
remission of sins. It is sufficient for us to have said these things
concerning the righteousness of reason or of the Law, which the
adversaries teach. For after a while, when we will declare our
belief concerning the righteousness of faith, the subject itself will
compel us to adduce more testimonies, which also will be of service
in overthrowing the errors of the adversaries which we have thus far
reviewed.
Because, therefore, men by their own strength cannot fulfil the Law
of God, and all are under sin, and subject to eternal wrath and death,
on this account we cannot be freed by the Law from sin and be
justified but the promise of the remission of sins and of
justification has been given us for Christ's sake, who was given for
us in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the world,
and has been appointed as the [only] Mediator and Propitiator. And
this promise has not the condition of our merits [it does not read
thus: Through Christ you have grace salvation, etc., if you merit it],
but freely offers the remission of sins and justification, as Paul
says, Rom. 11, 6: If it be of works, then is it no more grace. And
in another place, Rom. 3, 21: The righteousness of God without the
Law is manifested, i.e., the remission of sins is freely offered.
Nor does reconciliation depend upon our merits. Because, if the
remission of sins were to depend upon our merits, and reconciliation
were from the Law, it would be useless. For, as we do not fulfil the
Law, it would also follow that we would never obtain the promise of
reconciliation. Thus Paul reasons, Rom. 4, 14: For if they which are
of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none
effect. For if the promise would require the condition of our merits
and the Law, which we never fulfil, it would follow that the promise
would be useless.
But since justification is obtained through the free promise, it
follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, wherefore would
there be need to promise? [And why should Paul so highly extol and
praise grace?] For since the promise cannot be received except by
faith, the Gospel, which is properly the promise of the remission of
sins and of justification for Christ's sake, proclaims the
righteousness of faith in Christ, which the Law does not teach. Nor
is this the righteousness of the Law. For the Law requires of us our
works and our perfection. But the Gospel freely offers, for Christ's
sake, to us, who have been vanquished by sin and death,
reconciliation, which is received, not by works, but by faith alone.
This faith brings to God not confidence in one's own merits, but only
confidence in the promise, or the mercy promised in Christ. This
special faith, therefore, by which an individual believes that for
Christ's sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ's sake
God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and
justifies us. And because in repentance, i.e. in terrors, it
comforts and encourages hearts it regenerates us, and brings the Holy
Ghost that then we may be able to fulfil God's Law, namely, to love
God, truly to fear God, truly to be confident that God hears prayer,
and to obey God in all afflictions; it mortifies concupiscence, etc.
Thus, because faith, which freely receives the remission of sins,
sets Christ, the Mediator and Propitiator, against God's wrath, it
does not present our merits or our love [which would be tossed aside
like a little feather by a hurricane]. This faith is the true
knowledge of Christ, and avails itself of the benefits of Christ, and
regenerates hearts, and precedes the fulfilling of the Law. And of
this faith not a syllable exists in the doctrine of our adversaries.
Hence we find fault with the adversaries, equally because they teach
only the righteousness of the Law and because they do not teach the
righteousness of the Gospel, which proclaims the righteousness of
faith in Christ.