Books: The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

P >> Philip Melanchthon >> The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

Many arguments, likewise, can be collected to show that these
passages of Scripture pertain in no way to scholastic satisfactions.
These men imagine that satisfactions are works that are not due
[which we are not obliged to do]; but Scripture, in these passages,
requires works that are due [which we are obliged to do]. For this
word of Christ, Repent, is the word of a commandment. Likewise the
adversaries write that if any one who goes to confession should
refuse to undertake satisfactions, he does not sin, but will pay
these penalties in purgatory. Now the following passages are,
without controversy, precepts pertaining to this life: Repent; Bring
forth fruits meet for repentance; Yield your members servants to
righteousness. Therefore they cannot be distorted to the
satisfactions which it is permitted to refuse. For to refuse God's
commandments is not permitted. [For God's commands are not thus left
to our discretion.] Thirdly, indulgences remit these satisfactions,
as is taught by the Chapter, _De Poenitentiis et Remissione_,
beginning _Quum ex eo_, etc. But indulgences do not free us from the
commandments: Repent; Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.
Therefore it is manifest that these passages of Scripture have been
wickedly distorted to apply to canonical satisfactions. See further
what follows. If the punishments of purgatory are satisfactions, or
satispassions [sufferings sufficient], or if satisfactions are a
redemption of the punishments of purgatory, do these passages also
give commandment that souls be punished in purgatory? [The
above-cited passages of Christ and Paul must also show and prove that
souls enter purgatory and there suffer pain.] Since this must follow
from the opinions of the adversaries, these passages should be
interpreted in a new way [these passages should put on new coats]:
Bring forth fruits meet for repentance; Repent, i.e., suffer the
punishments of purgatory after this life. But we do not care about
refuting in more words these absurdities of the adversaries. For it
is evident that Scripture speaks of works that are due, of the entire
newness of life, and not of these observances of works that are not
due, of which the adversaries speak. And yet, by these figments they
defend orders [of monks], the sale of Masses and infinite observances,
namely, as works which, if they do not make satisfaction for guilt,
yet make satisfaction for punishment.

Since, therefore, the passages of Scripture cited do not say that
eternal punishments are to be compensated by works that are not due,
the adversaries are rash in affirming that these satisfactions are
compensated by canonical satisfactions. Nor do the keys have the
command to commute some punishments, and likewise to remit a part of
the punishments. For where are such things [dreams and lies] read in
the Scriptures? Christ speaks of the remission of sins when He says
Matt. 18, 18: Whatsoever ye shall loose, etc. [i.e.], sin being
forgiven, death eternal is taken away, and life eternal bestowed.
Nor does Whatsoever ye shall bind speak of the imposing of
punishments, but of retaining the sins of those who are not converted.
Moreover, the declaration of Longobard concerning remitting a part
of the punishments has been taken from the canonical punishments; a
part of these the pastors remitted. Although, we hold that
repentance ought to bring forth good fruits for the sake of God's
glory and command, and good fruits, true fastings, true prayers, true
alms, etc., have the commands of God, yet in the Holy Scriptures we
nowhere find this, namely, that eternal punishments are not remitted
except on account of the punishment of purgatory or canonical
satisfactions, i.e., on account of certain works not due, or that the
power of the keys has the command to commute their punishments or to
remit a portion. These things the adversaries were to prove. [This
they will not attempt.]

Besides, the death of Christ is a satisfaction not only for guilt,
but also for eternal death, according to Hos. 13, 14: 0 death, I will
be thy death. How monstrous, therefore, it is to say that the
satisfaction of Christ redeemed from the guilt, and our punishments
redeem from eternal death, as the expression, I will be thy death,
ought then to be understood, not concerning Christ, but concerning
our works, and, indeed, not concerning the works commanded by God,
but concerning some frigid observances devised by men! And these are
said to abolish death, even when they are wrought in mortal sin. It
is incredible with what grief we recite these absurdities of the
adversaries, which cannot but cause one who considers them to be
enraged against such doctrines of demons, which the devil has spread
in the Church in order to suppress the knowledge of the Law and
Gospel, of repentance and quickening, and the benefits of Christ.
For of the Law they speak thus: "God, condescending to our weakness,
has given to man a measure of those things to which of necessity he
is bound and this is the observance of precepts, so that from what is
left, i.e., from works of supererogation, he can render satisfaction
with reference to offenses that have been committed." Here men
imagine that they can observe the Law of God in such a manner as to
be able to do even more than the Law exacts. But Scripture
everywhere exclaims that we are far distant from the perfection which
the Law requires. Yet these men imagine that the Law of God has been
comprised in outward and civil righteousness; they do not see that it
requires true love to God "with the whole heart," etc., and condemns
the entire concupiscence in the nature. Therefore no one does as
much as the Law requires. Hence their imagination that we can do
more is ridiculous. For although we can perform outward works not
commanded by God's Law [which Paul calls beggarly ordinances], yet
the confidence that satisfaction is rendered God's Law [yea, that
more is done than God demands] is vain and wicked. And true prayers,
true alms, true fastings, have God's command; and where they have
God's command, they cannot without sin be omitted. But these works,
in so far as they have not been commanded by God's Law, but have a
fixed form derived from human rule are works of human traditions of
which Christ says, Matt. 15, 9: In vain they do worship Me with the
commandments of men, such as certain fasts appointed not for
restraining the flesh, but that, by this work, honor may be given to
God, as Scotus says, and eternal death be made up for; likewise, a
fixed number of prayers, a fixed measure of alms when they are
rendered in such a way that this measure is a worship _ex opere
operato_ giving honor to God, and making up for eternal death. For
they ascribe satisfaction to these _ex opere operato_, because they
teach that they avail even in those who are in mortal sin. There are
works which depart still farther from God's commands, as [rosaries
and] pilgrimages; and of these there is a great variety: one makes a
journey [to St. Jacob] clad in mail, and another with bare feet.
Christ calls these "vain acts of worship," and hence they do not
serve to appease God's displeasure, as the adversaries say. And yet
they adorn these works with magnificent titles; they call them works
of supererogation, to them the honor is ascribed of being a price
paid instead of eternal death. Thus they are preferred to the works
of God's commandments [the true works expressly mentioned in the Ten
Commandments]. In this way the Law of God is obscured in two ways,
one, because satisfaction is thought to be rendered God's Law by
means of outward and civil works, the other, because human traditions
are added whose works are preferred to the works of the divine Law.

Part 17

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

But the adversaries object that vengeance or punishment is necessary
for repentance, because Augustine says that repentance is vengeance
punishing, etc.. We grant that vengeance or punishment is necessary
in repentance, yet not as merit or price, as the adversaries imagine
that satisfactions are. But vengeance is in repentance formally, i.e.,
because regeneration itself occurs by a perpetual mortification of
the oldness of life. The saying of Scotus may indeed be very
beautiful, that _poenitentia_ is so called because it is, as it were,
_poenae tenentia_, holding to punishment. But of what punishment, of
what vengeance, does Augustine speak? Certainly of true punishment,
of true vengeance, namely, of contrition, of true terrors. Nor do we
here exclude the outward mortifications of the body, which follow
true grief of mind. The adversaries make a great mistake if they
imagine that canonical satisfactions [their juggler's tricks,
rosaries, pilgrimages, and such like] are more truly punishments than
are true terrors in the heart. It is most foolish to distort the
name of punishment to these frigid satisfactions, and not to refer
them to those horrible terrors of conscience of which David says, Ps.
18, 4; 2 Sam. 22, 5: The sorrows of death compassed me. Who would
not rather, clad in mail and equipped, seek the church of James, the
basilica of Peter, etc., than bear that ineffable violence of grief
which exists even in persons of ordinary lives, if there be true
repentance?

But they say that it belongs to God's justice to punish sin. He
certainly punishes it in contrition, when in these terrors He shows
His wrath. Just as David indicates when he prays, Ps. 6, 1: 0 Lord,
rebuke me not in Thine anger. And Jeremiah, 10, 24: 0 Lord, correct
me, but with judgment; not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me to
nothing. Here indeed the most bitter punishments are spoken of. And
the adversaries acknowledge that contrition can be so great that
satisfaction is not required. Contrition is therefore more truly a
punishment than is satisfaction. Besides, saints are subject to
death, and all general afflictions, as Peter says, 1 Ep. 4, 17: For
the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if
it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the
Gospel of God? And although these afflictions are for the most part
the punishments of sin, yet in the godly they have a better end,
namely, to exercise them, that they may learn amidst trials to seek
God's aid, to acknowledge the distrust of their own hearts, etc., as
Paul says of himself, 2 Cor. 1, 9: But we had the sentence of death
in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which
raiseth the dead. And Isaiah says, 26, 16: They poured out prayer
when Thy chastening was upon them i.e., afflictions are a discipline
by which God exercises the saints. Likewise afflictions are
inflicted because of present sin, since in the saints they mortify
and extinguish concupiscence, so that they may be renewed by the
Spirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 10: The body is dead because of sin, i.
e., it is mortified [more and more every day] because of present sin
which is still left in the flesh. And death itself serves this
purpose, namely, to abolish this flesh of sin, that we may rise
absolutely new. Neither is there now in the death of the believer,
since by faith he has overcome the terrors of death, that sting and
sense of wrath of which Paul speaks 1 Cor. 15, 56: The sting of death
is sin; and the strength of sin is the Law. This strength of sin,
this sense of wrath, is truly a punishment as long as it is present;
without this sense of wrath, death is not properly a punishment.
Moreover, canonical satisfactions do not belong to these punishments;
as the adversaries say that by the power of the keys a part of the
punishments is remitted. Likewise, according to these very men, the
keys remit the satisfactions, and the punishments on account of which
the satisfactions are made. But it is evident that the common
afflictions are not removed by the power of the keys. And if they
wish to be understood concerning punishments, why do they add that
satisfaction is to be rendered in purgatory?

They oppose the example of Adam, and also of David, who was punished
for his adultery. From these examples they derive the universal rule
that peculiar temporal punishments in the remission of sins
correspond to individual sins. It has been said before that saints
suffer punishments, which are works of God; they suffer contrition or
terrors, they also suffer other common afflictions. Thus, for
example, some suffer punishments of their own that have been imposed
by God. And these punishments pertain in no way to the keys because
the keys neither can impose nor remit them, but God, without the
ministry of the keys, imposes and remits them [as He will].

Neither does the universal rule follow: Upon David a peculiar
punishment was imposed, therefore, in addition to common afflictions,
there is another punishment of purgatory, in which each degree
corresponds to each sin. Where does Scripture teach that we cannot
be freed from eternal death except by the compensation of certain
punishments in addition to common afflictions? But, on the other
hand, it most frequently teaches that the remission of sins occurs
freely for Christ's sake, that Christ is the Victor of sin and death.
Therefore the merit of satisfaction is not to be patched upon this.
And although afflictions still remain, yet Scripture interprets these
as the mortifications of present sin [to kill and humble the old
Adam], and not as the compensations of eternal death or as prices for
eternal death.

Job is excused that he was not afflicted on account of past evil
deeds, therefore afflictions are not always punishments or signs of
wrath. Yea, terrified consciences are to be taught that other ends
of afflictions are more important [that they should learn to regard
troubles far differently, namely, as signs of grace], lest they think
that they are rejected by God when in afflictions they see nothing
but God's punishment and anger. The other more important ends are to
be considered namely, that God is doing His strange work so that He
may he able to do His own work, etc., as Isaiah teaches in a long
discourse, chap. 28. And when the disciples asked concerning the
blind man who sinned, John 9, 2. 3, Christ replies that the cause of
his blindness is not sin, but that the works of God should be made
manifest in him. And in Jeremiah, 49, 12, it is said: They whose
judgment was not to drink of the cup have assuredly drunken. Thus
the prophets and John the Baptist and other saints were killed.
Therefore afflictions are not always punishments for certain past
deeds, but they are the works of God, intended for our profit, and
that the power of God might be made more manifest in our weakness
[how He can help in the midst of death].

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

Nor, indeed, are common calamities [as war, famine, and similar
calamities], properly speaking, removed by these works of canonical
satisfactions, i.e., by these works of human traditions, which, they
say, _avail ex opere operato_, in such a way that, even though they
are wrought in mortal sin, yet they redeem from the punishments.
[And the adversaries themselves confess that they impose
satisfactions, not on account of such common calamities but on
account of purgatory; hence, their satisfactions are pure
imaginations and dreams.] And when the passage of Paul, 1 Cor. 11, 31,
is cited against us: If we would judge ourselves, we should not be
judged by the Lord [they conclude therefrom that, if we impose
punishment upon ourselves, God will judge us the more graciously],
the word to judge ought to be understood of the entire repentance and
due fruits, not of works which are not due. Our adversaries pay the
penalty for despising grammar when they understand to judge to be the
same as to make a pilgrimage clad in mail to the church of St. James,
or similar works. To judge signifies the entire repentance, it
signifies to condemn sins. This condemnation truly occurs in
contrition and the change of life. The entire repentance, contrition,
faith, the good fruits, obtain the mitigation of public and private
punishments and calamities, as Isaiah teaches chap. 1, 17, 19: Cease
to do evil; learn to do well, etc. Though your sins be as scarlet,
they shall be white as snow. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall
eat the good of the land. Neither should a most important and
salutary meaning be transferred from the entire repentance, and from
works due or commanded by God, to the satisfactions and works of
human traditions. And this it is profitable to teach that common
evils are mitigated by our repentance and by the true fruits of
repentance, by good works wrought from faith, not, as these men
imagine, wrought in mortal sin. And here belongs the example of the
Ninevites, Jonah 3, 10, who by their repentance (we speak of the
entire repentance) were reconciled to God, and obtained the favor
that their city was not destroyed.

Moreover, the making mention, by the Fathers, of satisfaction, and
the framing of canons by the councils, we have said above was a
matter of church-discipline instituted on account of the example.
Nor did they hold that this discipline is necessary for the remission
either of the guilt or of the punishment. For if some of them made
mention of purgatory, they interpret it not as compensation for
eternal punishment [which only Christ makes], not as satisfaction,
but as purification of imperfect souls. Just as Augustine says that
venial [daily] offenses are consumed i.e., distrust towards God and
other similar dispositions are mortified. Now and then the writers
transfer the term satisfaction from the rite itself or spectacle, to
signify true mortification. Thus Augustine says: True satisfaction
is to cut off the causes of sin, i.e., to mortify the flesh, likewise
to restrain the flesh, not in order that eternal punishments may be
compensated for but so that the flesh may not allure to sin.

Thus concerning restitution, Gregory says that repentance is false if
it does not satisfy those whose property we have taken. For he who
still steals does not truly grieve that he has stolen or robbed. For
he is a thief or robber, so long as he is the unjust possessor of the
property of another. This civil satisfaction is necessary, because
it is written Eph. 4, 28: Let him that stole, steal no more.
Likewise Chrysostom says: In the heart, contrition; in the mouth,
confession; in the work, entire humility. This amounts to nothing
against us. Good works ought to follow repentance, it ought to be
repentance, not simulation, but a change of the entire life for the
better.

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

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

But we have already frequently testified that repentance ought to
produce good fruits: and what the good fruits are the [Ten]
Commandments teach, namely, [truly and from the heart most highly to
esteem, fear, and love God, joyfully to call upon Him in need],
prayer, thanksgiving, the confession of the Gospel [hearing this
Word], to teach the Gospel, to obey parents and magistrates, to be
faithful to one's calling, not to kill, not to retain hatred, but to
be forgiving [to be agreeable and kind to one's neighbor], to give to
the needy, so far as we can according to our means, not to commit
fornication or adultery, but to restrain and bridle and chastise the
flesh, not for a compensation of eternal punishment, but so as not to
obey the devil, or offend the Holy Ghost, likewise, to speak the
truth. These fruits have God's injunction, and ought to be brought
forth for the sake of God's glory and command; and they have their
rewards also. But that eternal punishments are not remitted except
on account of the compensation rendered by certain traditions or by
purgatory, Scripture does not teach. Indulgences were formerly
remission of these public observances, so that men should not be
excessively burdened. But if, by human authority, satisfactions and
punishments can be remitted, this compensation, therefore, is not
necessary by divine Law, for a divine Law is not annulled by human
authority. Furthermore, since the custom has now of itself become
obsolete and the bishops have passed it by in silence, there is no
necessity for these remissions. And yet the name indulgences
remained. And just as satisfactions were understood not with
reference to external discipline, but with reference to the
compensation of punishment, so indulgences were incorrectly
understood to free souls from purgatory. But the keys have not the
power of binding and loosing except upon earth, according to Matt. 16,
19 : Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Although as we have said above, the keys have not the power to impose
penalties, or to institute rites of worship, but only the command to
remit sins to those who are converted, and to convict and
excommunicate those who are unwilling to be converted. For just as
to loose signifies to remit sins, so to bind signifies not to remit
sins. For Christ speaks of a spiritual kingdom. And the command of
God is that the ministers of the Gospel should absolve those who are
converted, according to 2 Cor. 10, 8: The authority which the Lord
hath given us for edification. Therefore the reservation of eases is
a secular affair. For it is a reservation of canonical punishment;
it is not a reservation of guilt before God in those who are truly
converted. Therefore the adversaries judge aright when they confess
that in the article of death the reservation of eases ought not to
hinder absolution.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25