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

The former mode of justification with them is, that they teach that
by good works men merit grace both _de congruo and de condigno_.
This mode is a doctrine of reason, because reason, not seeing the
uncleanness of the heart, thinks that it pleases God if it perform
good works, and for this reason other works and other acts of worship
are constantly devised, by men in great peril, against the terrors of
conscience. The heathen and the Israelites slew human victims, and
undertook many other most painful works in order to appease God's
wrath. Afterwards, orders of monks were devised, and these vied with
each other in the severity of their observances against the terrors
of conscience and God's wrath. And this mode of justification,
because it is according to reason, and is altogether occupied with
outward works, can be understood, and to a certain extent be rendered.
And to this the canonists have distorted the misunderstood Church
ordinances, which were enacted by the Fathers for a far different
purpose, namely, not that by these works we should seek after
righteousness, but that, for the sake of mutual tranquillity among
men, there might be a certain order in the Church. In this manner
they also distorted the Sacraments and most especially the Mass,
through which they seek _ex opere operato_ righteousness, grace, and
salvation.

Part 9

Another mode of justification is handed down by the scholastic
theologians when they teach that we are righteous through a habit
infused by God, which is love, and that, aided by this habit, we
observe the Law of God outwardly and inwardly and that this
fulfilling of the Law is worthy of grace and of eternal life. This
doctrine is plainly the doctrine of the Law. For that is true which
the Law says: Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, etc., Deut. 6, 5.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor Lev. 19, 18. Love is, therefore, the
fulfilling of the Law.

But it is easy for a Christian to judge concerning both modes,
because both modes exclude Christ, and are therefore to be rejected.
In the former, which teaches that our works are a propitiation for
sin, the impiety is manifest. The latter mode contains much that is
injurious. It does not teach that, when we are born again, we avail
ourselves of Christ. It does not teach that justification is the
remission of sins. It does not teach that we attain the remission of
sins before we love but falsely represents that we rouse in ourselves
the act of love, through which we merit remission of sins. Nor does
it teach that by faith in Christ we overcome the terrors of sin and
death. It falsely represents that, by their own fulfilling of the
Law, without Christ as Propitiator, men come to God. Finally, it
represents that this very fulfilling of the Law, without Christ as
Propitiator, is righteousness worthy of grace and eternal life, while
nevertheless scarcely a weak and feeble fulfilling of the Law occurs
even in saints.

But if any one will only reflect upon it that the Gospel has not been
given in vain to the world, and that Christ has not been promised,
set forth, has not been born, has not suffered, has not risen again
in vain, he will most readily understand that we are justified not
from reason or from the Law. In regard to justification, we
therefore are compelled to dissent from the adversaries. For the
Gospel shows another mode; the Gospel compels us to avail ourselves
of Christ in justification, it teaches that through Him we have
access to God by faith; it teaches that we ought to set Him as
Mediator and Propitiator against God's wrath; it teaches that by
faith in Christ the remission of sins and reconciliation are received,
and the terrors of sin and of death overcome. Thus Paul also says
that righteousness is not of the Law, but of the promise, in which
the Father has promised that He wishes to forgive, that for Christ's
sake He wishes to be reconciled. This promise, however, is received
by faith alone, as Paul testifies, Rom. 4,13. This faith alone
receives remission of sins, justifies, and regenerates. Then love
and other good fruits follow. Thus, therefore, we teach that man is
justified, as we have above said, when conscience, terrified by the
preaching of repentance, is cheered and believes that for Christ's
sake it has a reconciled God. This faith is counted for
righteousness before God, Rom. 4, 3. 5. And when in this manner the
heart is cheered and quickened by faith, it receives the Holy Ghost,
who renews us, so that we are able to observe the Law; so that we are
able to love God and the Word of God, and to be submissive to God in
afflictions, so that we are able to be chaste, to love our neighbor,
etc. Even though these works are as yet far distant from the
perfection of the Law, yet they please on account of faith, by which
we are accounted righteous, because we believe that for Christ's sake
we have a reconciled God. These things are plain and in harmony with
the Gospel, and can be understood by persons of sound mind. And from
this foundation it can easily be decided why we ascribe justification
to faith, and not to love; although love follows faith, because love
is the fulfilling of the Law. But Paul teaches that we are justified
not from the Law, but from the promise which is received only by
faith. For we neither come to God without Christ as Mediator, nor
receive remission of sins for the sake of our love, but for the sake
of Christ. Likewise we are not able to love God while He is angry,
and the Law always accuses us, always manifests to us an angry God.
Therefore, by faith we must first apprehend the promise that for
Christ's sake the Father is reconciled and forgives. Afterwards we
begin to observe the Law. Our eyes are to be cast far away from
human reason, far away from Moses upon Christ, and we are to believe
that Christ is given us, in order that for His sake we may be
accounted righteous. In the flesh we never satisfy the Law. Thus,
therefore, we are accounted righteous, not on account of the Law but
on account of Christ because His merits are granted us, if we believe
on Him. If any one, therefore, has considered these foundations,
that we are not justified by the Law because human nature cannot
observe the Law of God and cannot love God, but that we are justified
from the promise, in which, for Christ's sake, reconciliation,
righteousness, and eternal life have been promised, he will easily
understand that justification must necessarily be ascribed to faith,
if he only will reflect upon the fact that it is not in vain that
Christ has been promised and set forth, that He has been born and has
suffered and been raised again; if he will reflect upon the fact that
the promise of grace in Christ is not in vain, that it was made
immediately from the beginning of the world apart from and beyond the
Law; if he will reflect upon the fact that the promise should be
received by faith, as John says, 1 Ep. 5, 10 sq.: He that believeth
not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the record
that God gave of His Son. And this is the record that God hath given
to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the
Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
And Christ says John 8, 36: If the Son, therefore, shall make you
free, ye shall be free indeed. And Paul, Rom. 5, 2: By whom also we
have access to God; and he adds: by faith. By faith in Christ,
therefore, the promise of remission of sins and of righteousness is
received. Neither are we justified before God by reason or by the
Law.

These things are so plain and so manifest that we wonder that the
madness of the adversaries is so great as to call them into doubt.
The proof is manifest that, since we are justified before God not
from the Law but from the promise, it is necessary to ascribe
justification to faith. What can be opposed to this proof, unless
some one wish to abolish the entire Gospel and the entire Christ?
The glory of Christ becomes more brilliant when we teach that we
avail ourselves of Him as Mediator and Propitiator. Godly
consciences see that in this doctrine the most abundant consolation
is offered to them, namely, that they ought to believe and most
firmly assert that they have a reconciled Father for Christ's sake,
and not for the sake of our righteousness, and that, nevertheless,
Christ aids us, so that we are able to observe also the Law. Of such
great blessings as these the adversaries deprive the Church when they
condemn and endeavor to efface, the doctrine concerning the
righteousness of faith. Therefore let all well-disposed minds beware
of consenting to the godless counsels of the adversaries. In the
doctrine of the adversaries concerning justification no mention is
made of Christ, and how we ought to set Him against the wrath of God,
as though, indeed, we were able to overcome the wrath of God by love,
or to love an angry God. In regard to these things, consciences are
left in uncertainty. For if they are to think that they have a
reconciled God for the reason that they love, and that they observe
the Law, they must needs always doubt whether they have a reconciled
God, because they either do not feel this love, as the adversaries
acknowledge, or they certainly feel that it is very small; and much
more frequently do they feel that they are angry at the judgment of
God, who oppresses human nature with many terrible evils, with
troubles of this life, the terrors of eternal wrath, etc. When,
therefore, will conscience be at rest, when will it be pacified?
When, in this doubt and in these terrors, will it love God? What
else is the doctrine of the Law than a doctrine of despair? And let
any one of our adversaries come forward who can teach us concerning
this love, how he himself loves God. They do not at all understand
what they say they only echo, just like the walls of a house, the
little word "love," without understanding it. So confused and
obscure is their doctrine: it not only transfers the glory of Christ
to human works, but also leads consciences either to presumption or
to despair. But ours, we hope, is readily understood by pious minds,
and brings godly and salutary consolation to terrified consciences.
For as the adversaries quibble that also many wicked men and devils
believe, we have frequently already said that we speak of faith in
Christ, i.e., of faith in the remission of sins, of faith which truly
and heartily assents to the promise of grace. This is not brought
about without a great struggle in human hearts. And men of sound
mind can easily judge that the faith which believes that we are cared
for by God, and that we are forgiven and heard by Him, is a matter
above nature. For of its own accord the human mind makes no such
decision concerning God. Therefore this faith of which we speak is
neither in the wicked nor in devils.

Furthermore, if any sophist cavils that righteousness is in the will,
and therefore it cannot be ascribed to faith, which is in the
intellect, the reply is easy, because in the schools even such
persons acknowledge that the will commands the intellect to assent to
the Word of God. We say also quite clearly: Just as the terrors of
sin and death are not only thoughts of the intellect, but also
horrible movements of the will fleeing God's judgment, so faith is
not only knowledge in the intellect, but also confidence in the will,
i.e., it is to wish and to receive that which is offered in the
promise, namely, reconciliation and remission of sins. Scripture
thus uses the term "faith," as the following sentence of Paul
testifies, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with
God. Moreover, in this passage, to justify signifies, according to
forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but
on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which
righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. Therefore,
since in this passage our righteousness is the imputation of the
righteousness of another, we must here speak concerning righteousness
otherwise than when in philosophy or in a civil court we seek after
the righteousness of one's own work which certainly is in the will.
Paul accordingly says, 1 Cor. 1, 30: Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who of God is made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness, and
Sanctification, and Redemption. And 2 Cor. 5, 21: He hath mode Him
to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him. But because the righteousness of Christ
is given us by faith, faith is for this reason righteousness in us
imputatively, i.e., it is that by which we are made acceptable to God
on account of the imputation and ordinance of God, as Paul says, Rom.
4, 3. 5: Faith is reckoned for righteousness. Although on account of
certain captious persons we must say technically: Faith is truly
righteousness, because it is obedience to the Gospel. For it is
evident that obedience to the command of a superior is truly a
species of distributive justice. And this obedience to the Gospel is
reckoned for righteousness, so that, only on account of this, because
by this we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, good works, or obedience
to the Law, are pleasing. For we do not satisfy the Law, but for
Christ's sake this is forgiven us, as Paul says, Rom. 8, 1: There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
This faith gives God the honor, gives God that which is His own, in
this, that, by receiving the promises, it obeys Him. Just as Paul
also says, Rom. 4, 20: He staggered not at the promise of God through
unbelief, but was strong in faith, giving glory to God. Thus the
worship and divine service of the Gospel is to receive from God gifts,
on the contrary, the worship of the Law is to offer and present our
gifts to God. We can, however, offer nothing to God unless we have
first been reconciled and born again. This passage too, brings the
greatest consolation, as the chief worship of the Gospel is to wish
to receive remission of sins, grace, and righteousness. Of this
worship Christ says, John 6, 40: This is the will of Him that sent Me,
that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have
everlasting life. And the Father says, Matt. 17, 5: This is My
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him. The adversaries
speak of obedience to the Law; they do not speak of obedience to the
Gospel, and yet we cannot obey the Law, unless, through the Gospel,
we have been born again, since we cannot love God, unless the
remission of sins has been received. For as long as we feel that He
is angry with us, human nature flees from His wrath and judgment. If
any one should make a cavil such as this: If that be faith which
wishes those things that are offered in the promise, the habits of
faith and hope seem to be confounded, because hope is that which
expects promised things, to this we reply that these dispositions
cannot in reality be severed, in the manner that they are divided by
idle speculations in the schools. For also in the Epistle to the
Hebrews faith is defined as the substance (_exspectatio_) of things
hoped for, Heb. 11, 1. Yet if any one wish a distinction to be made,
we say that the object of hope is properly a future event, but that
faith is concerned with future and present things, and receives in
the present the remission of sins offered in the promise.

From these statements we hope that it can be sufficiently understood
both what faith is and that we are compelled to hold that by faith we
are justified, reconciled, and regenerated, if, indeed, we wish to
teach the righteousness of the Gospel, and not the righteousness of
the Law. For those who teach that we are justified by love teach the
righteousness of the Law, and do not teach us in justification to
avail ourselves of Christ as Mediator. These things also are
manifest namely, that not by love, but by faith, we overcome the
terrors of sin and death, that we cannot oppose our love and
fulfilling of the Law to the wrath of God, because Paul says, Rom. 5,
2: By Christ we have access to God by faith. We urge this sentence
so frequently for the sake of perspicuity. For it shows most clearly
the state of our whole case, and, when carefully considered, can
teach abundantly concerning the whole matter, and can console
well-disposed minds. Accordingly, it is of advantage to have it at
hand and in sight, not only that we may be able to oppose it to the
doctrine of our adversaries, who teach that we come to God not by
faith, but by love and merits, without Christ as Mediator; and also,
at the same time that, when in fear, we may cheer ourselves and
exercise faith. This is also manifest, that without the aid of
Christ we cannot observe the Law, as He Himself says John 15, 5:
Without Me ye can do nothing. Accordingly, before we observe the Law,
our hearts must be born again by faith. [From the explanations
which we have made it can easily be inferred what answer must be
given to similar quotations. For the rule so interprets all passages
that treat of good works that outside of Christ they are to be
worthless before God, and that the heart must first have Christ, and
believe that it is accepted with God for Christ's sake, not because
of its own works. The adversaries also bring forward some arguments
of the schools, which are easily answered, if you know what faith is.
Tried Christians speak of faith quite differently from the sophists,
for we have shown before that to believe means to rely on the mercy
of God, that He desires to be gracious for Christ's sake, without our
merits. That is what it means to believe the article of the
forgiveness of sin. To believe this does not mean to know the
history only, which the devils also know. Therefore we can easily
meet the argument of the schools when they say that the devils also
believe, therefore faith does not justify. Aye, the devils know the
history, but they do not believe the forgiveness of sin. Again, they
say: To be righteous is to be obedient. Now, to perform works is
certainly obedience; therefore works must justify. We should answer
this as follows: To be righteous is a kind of obedience which God
accepts as such. Now God is not willing to accept our obedience in
works as righteousness; for it is not an obedience of the heart,
because none truly keep the Law. For this reason He has ordained
that there should be another kind of obedience which He will accept
as righteousness, namely, that we are to acknowledge our disobedience,
and trust that we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, not on
account of our obedience. Accordingly, to be righteous in this case
means to be pleasing to God, not on account of our own obedience, but
from mercy for Christ's sake. Again, to sin is to hate God;
therefore, to love God must be righteousness. True, to love God is
the righteousness of the Law. But nobody fulfils this Law.
Therefore the Gospel teaches a new kind of righteousness, namely,
that we are pleasing to God for Christ's sake, although we have not
fulfilled the Law; and yet, we are to begin to do the Law. Again,
what is the difference between faith and hope? Answer: Hope expects
future blessings and deliverance from tribulation; faith receives the
present reconciliation, and concludes in the heart that God has
forgiven my sin, and that He is now gracious to me. And this is a
noble service of God, which serves God by giving Him the honor, and
by esteeming His mercy and promise so sure that without merit we can
receive and expect from Him all manner of blessings. And in this
service of God the heart should be exercised and increase, of which
the foolish sophists know nothing.]

Hence it can also be understood why we find fault with the doctrine
of the adversaries concerning _meritum condigni_. The decision is
very easy: because they do not make mention of faith, that we please
God by faith for Christ's sake, but imagine that good works, wrought
by the aid of the habit of love, constitute a righteousness worthy by
itself to please God, and worthy of eternal life, and that they have
no need of Christ as Mediator. [This can in no wise be tolerated.]
What else is this than to transfer the glory of Christ to our works,
namely that we please God because of our works, and not because of
Christ? But this is also to rob Christ of the glory of being the
Mediator who is Mediator perpetually, and not merely in the beginning
of Justification. Paul also says, Gal. 2, 17, that If one justified
in Christ have need afterwards to seek righteousness elsewhere, he
affirms of Christ that He is a minister of sin, i.e., that He does
not fully justify. [And this is what the holy, catholic, Christian
Church teaches, preaches, and confesses, namely, that we are saved by
mercy as we have shown above from Jerome.] And most absurd is that
which the adversaries teach, namely, that good works merit _grace de
condigno_, as though indeed after the beginning of justification, if
conscience is terrified, as is ordinarily the case, grace must be
sought through a good work, and not by faith in Christ.

Secondly, the doctrine of the adversaries leaves consciences in doubt,
so that they never can be pacified, because the Law always accuses
us, even in good works. For always the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, Gal. 5, 17. How, therefore, will conscience here have peace
without faith, if it believe that, not for Christ's sake, but for the
sake of one's own work, it ought now to please God? What work will
it find, upon what will it firmly rely as worthy of eternal life, if,
indeed, hope ought to originate from merits? Against these doubts
Paul says, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace with
God; we ought to be firmly convinced that for Christ's sake
righteousness and eternal life are granted us. And of Abraham he
says Rom. 4, 18: Against hope he believed in hope.

Thirdly, how will conscience know when by the inclination of this
habit of love, a work has been done of which it may affirm that it
merits _grace de condigno_? But it is only to elude the Scriptures
that this very distinction has been devised, namely, that men merit
at one time _de congruo_ and at another time _de condigno_, because,
as we have above said, the intention of the one who works does not
distinguish the kinds of merit; but hypocrites, in their security,
think simply their works are worthy, and that for this reason they
are accounted righteous. On the other hand, terrified consciences
doubt concerning all works, and for this reason are continually
seeking other works. For this is what it means to _merit de congruo_,
namely to doubt and, without faith, to work, until despair takes
place. In a word, all that the adversaries teach in regard to this
matter is full of errors and dangers.

Fourthly, the entire [the holy, catholic, Christian] Church confesses
that eternal life is attained through mercy. For thus Augustine
speaks On Grace and Free Will, when indeed, he is speaking of the
works of the saints wrought after justification: God leads us to
eternal life not by our merits, but according to His mercy. And
Confessions, Book IX: Woe to the life of man, however much it may be
worthy of praise, if it be judged with mercy removed. And Cyprian in
his treatise on the Lord's Prayer: Lest any one should flatter
himself that he is innocent, and by exalting himself, should perish
the more deeply, he is instructed and taught that he sins daily, in
that he is bidden to entreat daily for his sins. But the subject is
well known, and has very many and very clear testimonies in Scripture,
and in the Church Fathers, who all with one mouth declare that, even
though we have good works yet in these very works we need mercy.
Faith looking upon this mercy cheers and consoles us. Wherefore the
adversaries teach erroneously when they so extol merits as to add
nothing concerning this faith that apprehends mercy. For just as we
have above said that the promise and faith stand in a reciprocal
relation, and that the promise is not apprehended unless by faith, so
we here say that the promised mercy correlatively requires faith, and
cannot be apprehended without faith. Therefore we justly find fault
with the doctrine concerning _meritum condigni_, since it teaches
nothing of justifying faith, and obscures the glory and office of
Christ as Mediator. Nor should we be regarded as teaching anything
new in this matter, since the Church Fathers have so clearly handed
down the doctrine that even in good works we need mercy.

Scripture also often inculcates the same. In Ps. 143, 9: And enter
not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man
living be justified. This passage denies absolutely, even to all
saints and servants of God, the glory of righteousness, if God does
not forgive, but judges and convicts their hearts. For when David
boasts in other places of his righteousness, he speaks concerning his
own cause against the persecutors of God's Word, he does not speak of
his personal purity; and he asks that the cause and glory of God be
defended, as in Ps. 7, 8: Judge me, O Lord, according to Thy
righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.
Likewise in Ps. 130, 3, he says that no one can endure God's judgment,
if God were to mark our sins: If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark
iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Job 9, 28: I am afraid of all
my sorrows [Vulg., opera, works]; v. 30: If I wash myself with
snow-water, and make my hands never so clean, yet Thou shalt plunge
me in the ditch. Prov. 20, 9: Who can say, I have made my heart
clean, I am pure from my sin? 1 John 1, 8: If we say that we have no
sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, etc. And in the
Lord's Prayer the saints ask for the remission of sins. Therefore
even the saints have sins. Num. 14, 18: The innocent shall not be
innocent [cf. Ex. 34, 7]. Deut. 4, 24: The Lord, thy God, is a
consuming fire. Zechariah also says, 2, 13: Be silent, O all flesh,
before the Lord. Is. 40, 6: All flesh is as grass, and all the
goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth,
the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it, i.
e., flesh and righteousness of the flesh cannot endure the judgment
of God. Jonah also says, chap. 2, 8: They that observe lying
vanities forsake their own mercy, i.e., all confidence is vain,
except confidence in mercy; mercy delivers us; our own merits, our
own efforts, do not. Accordingly, Daniel also prays, 9, 18 sq.: For
we do not present our supplications before Thee for our
righteousnesses but for Thy great mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord,
forgive; O Lord, hearken and do it; defer not for Thine own sake, O
my God; for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name. Thus
Daniel teaches us in praying to lay hold upon mercy, i.e., to trust
in God's mercy, and not to trust in our own merits before God. We
also wonder what our adversaries do in prayer, if, indeed, the
profane men ever ask anything of God. If they declare that they are
worthy because they have love and good works, and ask for grace as a
debt, they pray precisely like the Pharisee in Luke 18, 11, who says:
I am not as other men are. He who thus prays for grace and does not
rely upon God's mercy, treats Christ with dishonor, who, since He is
our High Priest, intercedes for us. Thus, therefore, prayer relies
upon God's mercy, when we believe that we are heard for the sake of
Christ the High Priest, as He Himself says, John 14, 13: Whatsoever
ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you. In My name,
He says, because without this High Priest we cannot approach the
Father.

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