_Reply to the Arguments of the Adversaries._
Now, when the grounds of this case have been understood, namely, the
distinction between the Law and the promises, or the Gospel, it will
be easy to resolve the objections of the adversaries. For they cite
passages concerning the Law and works, and omit passages concerning
the promises. But a reply can once for all be made to all opinions
concerning the Law, namely, that the Law cannot be observed without
Christ, and that if civil works are wrought without Christ, they do
not please God. [God is not pleased with the person.] Wherefore,
when works are commended, it is necessary to add that faith is
required, that they are commended on account of faith, that they are
the fruits and testimonies of faith. [This our doctrine is, indeed,
plain; it need not fear the light, and may be held against the Holy
Scriptures. We have also clearly and correctly presented it here, if
any will receive instruction and not knowingly deny the truth. For
rightly to understand the benefit of Christ and the great treasure of
the Gospel (which Paul extols so greatly), we must separate, on the
one hand, the promise of God and the grace that is offered, and, on
the other hand the Law, as far as the heavens are from the earth. In
shaky matters many explanations are needed, but in a good matter one
or two thoroughgoing explanations dissolve all objections which men
think they can raise.] Ambiguous and dangerous cases produce many and
various solutions. For the judgment of the ancient poet is true:
"An unjust cause, being In Itself sick, requires skilfully applied
remedies."
But in just and sure cases one or two explanations derived from the
sources correct all things that seem to offend. This occurs also in
this case of ours. For the rule which I have just recited, explains
all the passages that are cited concerning the Law and works [namely,
that without Christ the Law cannot be truly observed, and although
external works may be performed, still the person doing them does not
please God outside of Christ]. For we acknowledge that Scripture
teaches in some places the Law, and in other places the Gospel, or
the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ's sake.
But our adversaries absolutely abolish the free promise when they
deny that faith justifies, and teach that for the sake of love and of
our works we receive remission of sins and reconciliation. If the
remission of sins depends upon the condition of our works, it is
altogether uncertain. [For we can never be certain whether we do
enough works, or whether our works are sufficiently holy and pure.
Thus, too, the forgiveness of sins is made uncertain, and the promise
of God perishes, as Paul says, Rom. 4, 14: The promise is made of
none effect, and everything is rendered uncertain.] Therefore the
promise will be abolished. Hence we refer godly minds to the
consideration of the promises, and we teach concerning the free
remission of sins and concerning reconciliation, which occurs through
faith in Christ. Afterwards we add also the doctrine of the Law.
[Not that by the Law we merit the remission of sins, or that for the
sake of the Law we are accepted with God, but because God requires
good works.] And it is necessary to divide these things aright, as
Paul says, 2 Tim. 2, 15. We must see what Scripture ascribes to the
Law, and what to the promises. For it praises works in such a way as
not to remove the free promise [as to place the promise of God and
the true treasure, Christ, a thousand leagues above it].
For good works are to be done on account of God's command, likewise
for the exercise of faith [as Paul says, Eph. 2, 10: We are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works], and on account
of confession and giving of thanks. For these reasons good works
ought necessarily to be done, which, although they are done in the
flesh not as yet entirely renewed, that retards the movements of the
Holy Ghost, and imparts some of its uncleanness, yet, on account of
Christ, are holy, divine works, sacrifices, and acts pertaining to
the government of Christ, who thus displays His kingdom before this
world. For in these He sanctifies hearts and represses the devil,
and, in order to retain the Gospel among men, openly opposes to the
kingdom of the devil the confession of saints, and, in our weakness,
declares His power. The dangers, labors, and sermons of the Apostle
Paul, of Athanasius, Augustine, and the like, who taught the churches,
are holy works, are true sacrifices acceptable to God, are contests
of Christ through which He repressed the devil, and drove him from
those who believed. David's labors, in waging wars and in his home
government, are holy works, are true sacrifices, are contests of God,
defending the people who had the Word of God against the devil, in
order that the knowledge of God might not be entirely extinguished on
earth. We think thus also concerning every good work in the humblest
callings and in private affairs. Through these works Christ
celebrates His victory over the devil, just as the distribution of
alms by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 16, 1, was a holy work and a
sacrifice and contest of Christ against the devil, who labors that
nothing may be done for the praise of God. To disparage such works,
the confession of doctrine, affliction, works of love, mortifications
of the flesh would be indeed to disparage the outward government of
Christ's kingdom among men. Here also we add something concerning
rewards and merits. We teach that rewards have been offered and
promised to the works of believers. We teach that good works are
meritorious, not for the remission of sins, for grace or
justification (for these we obtain only by faith), but for other
rewards, bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life
because Paul says, 1 Cor. 3, 8: Every man shall receive his own
reward, according to his own labor. There will, therefore, be
different rewards according to different labors. But the remission
of sins is alike and equal to all, just as Christ is one, and is
offered freely to all who believe that for Christ's sake their sins
are remitted. Therefore the remission of sins and justification are
received only by faith, and not on account of any works, as is
evident in the terrors of conscience, because none of our works can
be opposed to God's wrath, as Paul clearly says, Rom. 5, 1: Being
justified by faith, toe have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom also we have access by faith, etc. But because faith
makes sons of God, it also makes coheirs with Christ. Therefore,
because by our works we do not merit justification, through which we
are made sons of God, and coheirs with Christ, we do not by our works
merit eternal life; for faith obtains this, because faith justifies
us and has a reconciled God. But eternal life is due the justified,
according to the passage Rom. 8, 30: Whom He justified, them He also
glorified. Paul, Eph. 6, 2, commends to us the commandment
concerning honoring parents, by mention of the reward which is added
to that commandment where he does not mean that obedience to parents
justifies us before God, but that, when it occurs in those who have
been justified, it merits other great rewards. Yet God exercises His
saints variously, and often defers the rewards of the righteousness
of works in order that they may learn not to trust in their own
righteousness, and may learn to seek the will of God rather than the
rewards, as appears in Job, in Christ, and other saints. And of this,
many psalms teach us, which console us against the happiness of the
wicked, as Ps. 37, 1: Neither be thou envious. And Christ says, Matt.
5, 10: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. By these praises of good works,
believers are undoubtedly moved to do good works. Meanwhile, the
doctrine of repentance is also proclaimed against the godless, whose
works are wicked; and the wrath of God is displayed, which He has
threatened all who do not repent. We therefore praise and require
good works, and show many reasons why they ought to be done.
Thus of works Paul also teaches when he says, Rom. 4, 9 sq., that
Abraham received circumcision, not in order that by this work he
might be justified; for by faith he had already attained it that he
was accounted righteous. But circumcision was added in order that he
might have in his body a written sign, admonished by which he might
exercise faith, and by which also he might confess his faith before
others, and by his testimony might invite others to believe. By
faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice, Heb. 11, 4.
Because, therefore, he was just by faith, the sacrifice which he made
was pleasing to God, not that by this work he merited the remission
of sins and grace, but that he exercised his faith and showed it to
others, in order to invite them to believe.
Although in this way good works ought to follow faith, men who cannot
believe and be sure that for Christ's sake they are freely forgiven,
and that freely for Christ's sake they have a reconciled God, employ
works far otherwise. When they see the works of saints, they judge
in a human manner that saints have merited the remission of sins and
grace through these works. Accordingly, they imitate them, and think
that through similar works they merit the remission of sins and grace;
they think that through these works they appease the wrath of God,
and attain that for the sake of these works they are accounted
righteous. This godless opinion concerning works we condemn. In the
first place, because it obscures the glory of Christ when men offer
to God these works as a price and propitiation. This honor, due to
Christ alone, is ascribed to our works. Secondly, they nevertheless
do not find, in these works, peace of conscience, but in true terrors,
heaping up works upon works, they at length despair because they
find no work sufficiently pure [sufficiently important and precious
to propitiate God, to obtain with certainty eternal life, in a word,
to tranquilize and pacify the conscience]. The Law always accuses,
and produces wrath. Thirdly, such persons never attain the knowledge
of God [nor of His will]; for, as in anger they flee from God, who
judges and afflicts them, they never believe that they are heard.
But faith manifests the presence of God, since it is certain that God
freely forgives and hears us.
Moreover, this godless opinion concerning works always has existed in
the world [sticks to the world quite tightly]. The heathen had
sacrifices, derived from the fathers. They imitated their works.
Their faith they did not retain, but thought that the works were a
propitiation and price on account of which God would be reconciled to
them. The people in the law [the Israelites] imitated sacrifices
with the opinion that by means of these works they would appease God,
so to say, _ex opere operato_. We see here how earnestly the
prophets rebuke the people: Ps. 50, 8: I will not reprove thee for
thy sacrifices, and Jer. 7, 22: I spake not unto your fathers
concerning burnt offerings. Such passages condemn not works, which
God certainly had commanded as outward exercises in this government,
but they condemn the godless opinion according to which they thought
that by these works they appeased the wrath of God, and thus cast
away faith. And because no works pacify the conscience, new works,
in addition to God's commands, were from time to time devised [the
hypocrites nevertheless used to invent one work after another, one
sacrifice after another, by a blind guess and in reckless wantonness,
and all this without the word and command of God, with wicked
conscience as we have seen in the Papacy]. The people of Israel had
seen the prophets sacrificing on high places [and in groves].
Besides, the examples of the saints very greatly move the minds of
those, hoping by similar works to obtain grace just as these saints
obtained it. [But the saints believed.] Wherefore the people began,
with remarkable zeal, to imitate this work, in order that by such a
work [they might appease the wrath of God] they might merit remission
of sins, grace, and righteousness. But the prophets had been
sacrificing on high places, not that by these works they might merit
the remission of sins and grace, but because on these places they
taught, and, accordingly, presented there a testimony of their faith.
The people had heard that Abraham had sacrificed his son. Wherefore
they also, in order to appease God by a most cruel and difficult work,
put to death their sons. But Abraham did not sacrifice his son with
the opinion that this work was a price and propitiatory work for the
sake of which he was accounted righteous. Thus in the Church the
Lord's Supper was instituted that by remembrance of the promises of
Christ, of which we are admonished in this sign, faith might be
strengthened in us, and we might publicly confess our faith, and
proclaim the benefits of Christ, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As
often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death, etc. But our adversaries contend that the mass is a work that
justifies us _ex opere operato_, and removes the guilt and liability
to punishment in those for whom it is celebrated, for thus writes
Gabriel.
Anthony, Bernard, Dominicus, Franciscus, and other holy Fathers
selected a certain kind of life either for the sake of study [of more
readily reading the Holy Scriptures] or other useful exercises. In
the mean time they believed that by faith they were accounted
righteous for Christ's sake, and that God was gracious to them, not
on account of those exercises of their own. But the multitude since
then has imitated not the faith of the Fathers, but their example
without faith, in order that by such works they might merit the
remission of sins, grace, and righteousness: they did not believe
that they received these freely on account of Christ as Propitiator.
[Thus the human mind always exalts works too highly, and puts them in
the wrong place. And this error the Gospel reproves which teaches
that men are accounted righteous not for the sake of the Law, but for
the sake of Christ alone. Christ, however, is apprehended by faith
alone; wherefore we are accounted righteous by faith alone for
Christ's sake.] Thus the world judges of all works that they are a
propitiation by which God is appeased; that they are a price because
of which we are accounted righteous. It does not believe that Christ
is Propitiator; it does not believe that by faith we freely attain
that we are accounted righteous for Christ's sake. And, nevertheless,
since works cannot pacify the conscience, others are continually
chosen, new rites are performed, new vows made, and new orders of
monks formed beyond the command of God, in order that some great work
may be sought which may be set against the wrath and judgment of God.
Contrary to Scripture, the adversaries uphold these godless opinions
concerning works. But to ascribe to our works these things, namely,
that they are a propitiation, that they merit the remission of sins
and grace that for the sake of these and not by faith for the sake of
Christ as Propitiator we are accounted righteous before God, what
else is this than to deny Christ the honor of Mediator and
Propitiator? Although, therefore, we believe and teach that good
works must necessarily be done (for the inchoate fulfilling of the
Law ought to follow faith), nevertheless we give to Christ His own
honor. We believe and teach that by faith, for Christ's sake, we are
accounted righteous before God, that we are not accounted righteous
because of works without Christ as Mediator, that by works we do not
merit the remission of sins, grace, and righteousness, that we cannot
set our works against the wrath and justice of God, that works cannot
overcome the terrors of sin, but that the terrors of sin are overcome
by faith alone, that only Christ the Mediator is to be presented by
faith against the wrath and judgment of God. If any one think
differently, he does not give Christ due honor, who has been set
forth that He might be a Propitiator, that through Him we might have
access to the Father. We are speaking now of the righteousness
through which we treat with God not with men, but by which we
apprehend grace and peace of conscience. Conscience however, cannot
be pacified before God, unless by faith alone, which is certain that
God for Christ's sake is reconciled to us, according to Rom. 5, 1:
Being justified by faith, we have peace because justification is only
a matter freely promised for Christ's sake, and therefore is always
received before God by faith alone.
Now, then, we will reply to those passages which the adversaries cite,
in order to prove that we are justified by love and works. From 1
Cor. 13, 2 they cite: Though I have all faith, etc., and hove not
charity, I am nothing. And here they triumph greatly. Paul
testifies to the entire Church, they say, that faith alone does not
justify. But a reply is easy after we have shown above what we hold
concerning love and works. This passage of Paul requires love. We
also require this. For we have said above that renewal and the
inchoate fulfilling of the Law must exist in us, according to Jer. 31,
33: 1 will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts. If any one should cast away love, even though he have great
faith, yet he does not retain it, for he does not retain the Holy
Ghost [he becomes cold and is now again fleshly, without Spirit and
faith; for the Holy Ghost is not where Christian love and other
fruits of the Spirit are not]. Nor indeed does Paul in this passage
treat of the mode of justification, but he writes to those who, after
they had been justified, should be urged to bring forth good fruits
lest they might lose the Holy Ghost. The adversaries, furthermore,
treat the matter preposterously: they cite this one passage, in which
Paul teaches concerning fruits, they omit very many other passages,
in which in a regular order he discusses the mode of justification.
Besides, they always add a correction to the other passages, which
treat of faith, namely, that they ought to be understood as applying
to _fides formata_. Here they add no correction that there is also
need of the faith that holds that we are accounted righteous for the
sake of Christ as Propitiator. Thus the adversaries exclude Christ
from justification, and teach only a righteousness of the Law. But
let us return to Paul. No one can infer anything more from this text
than that love is necessary. This we confess. So also not to commit
theft is necessary. But the reasoning will not be correct if some
one would desire to frame thence an argument such as this: "Not to
commit theft is necessary. Therefore, not to commit theft justifies."
Because justification is not the approval of a certain work, but of
the entire person. Hence this passage from Paul does not harm us;
only the adversaries must not in imagination add to it whatever they
please. For he does not say that love justifies, but: ["And if I
have not love"] "I am nothing," namely, that faith, however great it
may have been, is extinguished. He does not say that love overcomes
the terrors of sin and of death that we can set our love against the
wrath and judgment of God, that our love satisfies God's Law, that
without Christ as Propitiator we have access, by our love, to God,
that by our love we receive the promised remission of sins. Paul
says nothing of this. He does not, therefore, think that love
justifies, because we are justified only when we apprehend Christ as
Propitiator, and believe that for Christ's sake God is reconciled to
us. Neither is justification even to be dreamed of with the omission
of Christ as Propitiator. If there be no need of Christ, if by our
love we can overcome death, if by our love, without Christ as
Propitiator' we have access to God, then let our adversaries remove
the promise concerning Christ, then let them abolish the Gospel
[which teaches that we have access to God through Christ as
Propitiator, and that we are accepted not for the sake of our
fulfilling of the Law, but for Christ's sake]. The adversaries
corrupt very many passages, because they bring to them their own
opinions, and do not derive the meaning from the passages themselves.
For what difficulty is there in this passage if we remove the
interpretation which the adversaries, who do not understand what
justification is or how it occurs [what faith is, what Christ is, or
how a man is justified before God], out of their own mind attach to
it? The Corinthians, being justified before, had received many
excellent gifts. In the beginning they glowed with zeal, just as is
generally the case. Then dissensions [factions and sects] began to
arise among them as Paul indicates; they began to dislike good
teachers. Accordingly, Paul reproves them, recalling them [to unity
and] to offices of love. Although these are necessary, yet it would
be foolish to imagine that works of the Second Table, through which
we have to do with man and not properly with God, justify us. But in
justification we have to treat with God; His wrath must be appeased,
and conscience must be pacified with respect to God. None of these
occur through the works of the Second Table [by love, but only by
faith, which apprehends Christ and the promise of God. However, it
is true that losing love involves losing the Spirit and faith. And
thus Paul says: If I have not love, I am nothing. But he does not
add the affirmative statement, that love justifies in the sight of
God].
But they object that love is preferred to faith and hope. For Paul
says, 1 Cor. 13, 13: The greatest of these is charity. Now, it is
reasonable that the greatest and chief virtue should justify,
although Paul, in this passage, properly speaks of love towards one's
neighbor, and indicates that love is the greatest, because it has
most fruits. Faith and hope have to do only with God; but love has
infinite offices externally towards men. [Love goes forth upon earth
among the people, and does much good, by consoling, teaching,
instructing, helping, counseling privately and publicly.]
Nevertheless, let us, indeed, grant to the adversaries that love
towards God and our neighbor is the greatest virtue, because the
chief commandment is this: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God Matt. 22,
37. But how will they infer thence that love justifies? The
greatest virtue, they say, justifies. By no means. [It would be
true if we had a gracious God because of our virtue. Now, it was
proven above that we are accepted and justified for Christ's sake,
not because of our virtue, for our virtue is impure.] For just as
even the greatest or first Law does not justify, so also the greatest
virtue of the Law does not justify. [For, as the Law and virtue is
higher, and our ability to do the same proportionately lower, we are
not righteous because of love.] But that virtue justifies which
apprehends Christ, which communicates to us Christ's merits, by which
we receive grace and peace from God. But this virtue is faith. For
as it has been often said, faith is not only knowledge, but much
rather willing to receive or apprehend those things which are offered
in the promise concerning Christ. Moreover this obedience towards
God, namely, to wish to receive the offered promise, is no less a
divine service, _latreia_, than is love. God wishes us to believe
Him, and to receive from Him blessings, and this He declares to be
true divine service.
But the adversaries ascribe justification to love because they
everywhere teach and require the righteousness of the Law. For we
cannot deny that love is the highest work of the Law. And human
wisdom gazes at the Law, and seeks in it justification. Accordingly,
also the scholastic doctors, great and talented men, proclaim this as
the highest work of the Law, and ascribe to this work justification.
But deceived by human wisdom, they did not look upon the uncovered,
but upon the veiled face of Moses, just as the Pharisees,
philosophers, Mahometans. But we preach the foolishness of the
Gospel, in which another righteousness is revealed, namely, that for
the sake of Christ, as Propitiator, we are accounted righteous, when
we believe that for Christ's sake God has been reconciled to us.
Neither are we ignorant how far distant this doctrine is from the
judgment of reason and of the Law. Nor are we ignorant that the
doctrine of the Law concerning love makes a much greater show; for it
is wisdom. But we are not ashamed of the foolishness of the Gospel.
For the sake of Christ's glory we defend this, and beseech Christ, by
His Holy Ghost, to aid us that we may be able to make this clear and
manifest.
The adversaries, in the Confutation, have also cited against us Col.
3, 14: Charity, which is the bond of perfectness. From this they
infer that love justifies because it renders men perfect. Although a
reply concerning perfection could here be made in many ways, yet we
will simply recite the meaning of Paul. It is certain that Paul
spoke of love towards one's neighbor. Neither must we indeed think
that Paul would ascribe either justification or perfection to the
works of the Second Table, rather than to those of the First. And if
love render men perfect, there will then be no need of Christ as
Propitiator, [However, Paul teaches in all places that we are
accepted on account of Christ, and not on account of our love, or our
works, or of the Law; for no saint (as was stated before) perfectly
fulfils the Law. Therefore since he in all places writes and teaches
that in this life there is no perfection in our works, it is not to
be thought that he speaks here of personal perfection.] for faith
apprehends Christ only as Propitiator. This, however, is far distant
from the meaning of Paul, who never suffers Christ to be excluded as
Propitiator. Therefore he speaks not of personal perfection, but of
the integrity common to the Church [concerning the unity of the
Church and the word which they interpret as perfection means nothing
else than to be not rent]. For on this account he says that love is
a bond or connection, to signify that he speaks of the binding and
joining together, with each other, of the many members of the Church.
For just as in all families and in all states concord should be
nourished by mutual offices, and tranquillity cannot be retained
unless men overlook and forgive certain mistakes among themselves; so
Paul commands that there should be love in the Church in order that
it may preserve concord, bear with the harsher manners of brethren as
there is need, overlook certain less serious mistakes, lest the
Church fly apart into various schisms, and enmities and factions and
heresies arise from the schisms.
For concord must necessarily he rent asunder whenever either the
bishops impose [without cause] upon the people heavier burdens, or
have no respect to weakness in the people. And dissensions arise
when the people judge too severely [quickly censure and criticize]
concerning the conduct [walk and life] of teachers [bishops or
preachers], or despise the teachers because of certain less serious
faults; for then both another kind of doctrine and other teachers are
sought after. On the other hand, perfection, i.e., the integrity of
the Church, is preserved, when the strong bear with the weak, when
the people take in good part some faults in the conduct of their
teachers [have patience also with their preachers], when the bishops
make some allowances for the weakness of the people [know how to
exercise forbearance to the people, according to circumstances, with
respect to all kinds of weaknesses and faults]. Of these precepts of
equity the books of all the wise are full, namely, that in every day
life we should make many allowances mutually for the sake of common
tranquillity. And of this Paul frequently teaches both here and
elsewhere. Wherefore the adversaries argue indiscreetly from the
term "perfection" that love justifies, while Paul speaks of common
integrity and tranquillity. And thus Ambrose interprets this passage:
Just as a building is said to be perfect or entire when all its
parts are fitly joined together with one another. Moreover, it is
disgraceful for the adversaries to preach so much concerning love
while they nowhere exhibit it. What are they now doing? They are
rending asunder churches, they are writing laws in blood, and are
proposing to the most clement prince, the Emperor, that these should
be promulgated; they are slaughtering priests and other good men, if
any one have [even] slightly intimated that he does not entirely
approve some manifest abuse. [They wish all dead who say a single
word against their godless doctrine.] These things are not consistent
with those declamations of love, which if the adversaries would
follow, the churches would be tranquil and the state have peace. For
these tumults would be quieted if the adversaries would not insist
with too much bitterness [from sheer vengeful spite and pharisaical
envy, against the truth which they have perceived] upon certain
traditions, useless for godliness, most of which not even those very
persons observe who most earnestly defend them. But they easily
forgive themselves, and yet do not likewise forgive others, according
to the passage in the poet: I forgive myself, Maevius said. But this
is very far distant from those encomiums of love which they here
recite from Paul, nor do they understand the word any more than the
walls which give it back. From Peter they cite also this sentence, 1
Pet. 4, 8: Charity shall cover the multitude of sins. It is evident
that also Peter speaks of love towards one's neighbor, because he
joins this passage to the precept by which he commands that they
should love one another. Neither could it have come into the mind of
any apostle that our love overcomes sin and death; that love is the
propitiation on account of which to the exclusion of Christ as
Mediator, God is reconciled; that love is righteousness without
Christ as Mediator. For this love, if there would be any, would be a
righteousness of the Law, and not of the Gospel, which promises to us
reconciliation and righteousness if we believe that, for the sake of
Christ as Propitiator, the Father has been reconciled, and that the
merits of Christ are bestowed upon us. Peter, accordingly, urges us,
a little before, to come to Christ that we may be built upon Christ.
And he adds, 1 Pet. 2, 4-6: He that believeth on Him shall not be
confounded. When God judges and convicts us, our love does not free
us from confusion [from our works and lives, we truly suffer shame].
But faith in Christ liberates us in these fears, because we know that
for Christ's sake we are forgiven.
Besides, this sentence concerning love is derived from Prov. 10,12,
where the antithesis clearly shows how it ought to be understood:
Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins. It teaches
precisely the same thing as that passage of Paul taken from
Colossians, that if any dissensions would occur, they should be
moderated and settled by our equitable and lenient conduct.
Dissensions, it says, increase by means of hatred, as we often see
that from the most trifling offenses tragedies arise [from the
smallest sparks a great conflagration arises]. Certain trifling
offenses occurred between Caius Caesar and Pompey, in which, if the
one had yielded a very little to the other, civil war would not have
arisen. But while each indulged his own hatred, from a matter of no
account the greatest commotions arose. And many heresies have arisen
in the Church only from the hatred of the teachers. Therefore it
does not refer to a person's own faults, but to the faults of others,
when it says: Charity covereth sins, namely, those of others, and
that, too, among men, i.e., even though these offenses occur, yet
love overlooks them, forgives, yields, and does not carry all things
to the extremity of justice. Peter, therefore, does not mean that
love merits in God's sight the remission of sins, that it is a
propitiation to the exclusion of Christ as Mediator, that it
regenerates and justifies, but that it is not morose, harsh,
intractable towards men, that it overlooks some mistakes of its
friends, that it takes in good part even the harsher manners of
others, just as the well-known maxim enjoins: Know, but do rot hate,
the manners of a fiend. Nor was it without design that the apostle
taught so frequently concerning this office what the philosophers
call epieicheia, leniency. For this virtue is necessary for
retaining public harmony [in the Church and the civil government],
which cannot last unless pastors and Churches mutually overlook and
pardon many things [if they want to be extremely particular about
every defect, and do not allow many things to flow by without
noticing them].
From James they cite 2, 24: Ye see, then how by works a man is
justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed
to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain.
If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the
merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of
disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the
adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of
good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a
propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us;
that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death; that good
works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and
that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all
these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries
nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.
In the first place, then, we must ponder this, namely, that the
passage is more against the adversaries than against us. For the
adversaries teach that man is justified by love and works. Of faith,
by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing. Yea
they condemn this faith; nor do they condemn it only in sentences and
writings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavor
to exterminate it in the Church. How much better does James teach,
who does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, but
retains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded as
Propitiator! Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of the
Christian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1, 5: The end of the
commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience,
and of faith unfeigned.
Secondly, the subject itself declares that here such works are spoken
of as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living and
efficacious in the heart. James, therefore, did not believe that by
good works we merit the remission of sins and grace. For he speaks
of the works of those who have been justified, who have already been
reconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins.
Wherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches that
we merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by our
works we have access to God, without Christ as Propitiator.