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

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.

Part 8

Thirdly, James has spoken shortly before concerning regeneration,
namely, that it occurs through the Gospel. For thus he says 1, 18:
Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be
a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. When he says that we have
been born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born
again and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ is
apprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sin
and of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are born
again by our works.

From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who,
when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have
faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead
and living faith. He says that that is dead which does not bring
forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit: obedience, patience,
chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good
works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term
faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the
history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but
of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and
consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy
Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of
death, of sin, etc.]. Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the
adversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to
believe! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for
myself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which
we overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians,
2, 12, that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and
overcomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith
of the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, it
necessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a new
light and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and
spirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.]
Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such
a faith as is without works. But when he says that we are justified
by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again
by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our
Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he
describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just
are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he
is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well
said: He who has faith and good works is righteous; not, indeed, on
account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a
good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not
make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although
they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first
be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for
Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God
gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for
Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and
does not say that by our works we merit, etc.] And here to be
justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked
man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in
the passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As,
therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified,
contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe
concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not
by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly
pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints
are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends
only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of
Abraham, 2, 21: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is
said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced
righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good
fruits which please Him on account of faith, and accordingly, are the
fulfilment of the Law. These things, simply spoken, contain nothing
erroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries who attach to
them godless opinions out of their mind. For it does not follow
hence that works merit the remission of sins; that works regenerate
hearts; that works are a propitiation, that works please without
Christ as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator.
James says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, the
adversaries shamelessly infer from the words of James.

Certain other passages concerning works are also cited against us.
Luke 6, 37: Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Is. 58, 7 [9]: Is it
not to deal thy bread to the hungry?...Then shalt thou call, and the
Lord will answer. Dan. 4, 24 [27]: Break off thy sins, by showing
mercy to the poor. Matt. 5, 3: Blessed are the poor in spirit; for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven; and v. 7: Blessed are the merciful;
for they shall obtain mercy. Even these passages would contain
nothing contrary to us if the adversaries would not falsely attach
something to them. For they contain two things: The one is a
preaching either of the Law or of repentance, which not only convicts
those doing wrong, but also enjoins them to do what is right; the
other is a promise which is added. But it is not added that sins are
remitted without faith, or that works themselves are a propitiation.
Moreover, in the preaching of the Law these two things ought always
to be understood, namely: First, that the Law cannot be observed
unless we have been regenerated by faith in Christ, just as Christ
says, John 15, 5: Without Me ye can do nothing. Secondly, and though
some external works can certainly be done, this general judgment:
Without faith it is impossible to please God, which interprets the
whole Law, must be retained: and the Gospel must be retained, that
through Christ we have access to the Father, Heb. 10, 19, Rom. 5, 2.
For it is evident that we are not justified by the Law. Otherwise,
why would there be need of Christ or the Gospel, if the preaching of
the Law alone would be sufficient? Thus in the preaching of
repentance, the preaching of the Law, or the Word convicting of sin,
is not sufficient, because the Law works wrath, and only accuses,
only terrifies consciences, because consciences never are at rest,
unless they hear the voice of God in which the remission of sins is
clearly promised. Accordingly, the Gospel must be added, that for
Christ's sake sins are remitted, and that we obtain remission of sins
by faith in Christ. If the adversaries exclude the Gospel of Christ
from the preaching of repentance, they are judged aright to be
blasphemers against Christ.

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